While the Republicans were busy chanting "drill, baby, drill" at their convention, they ignored a much better alternative: riding on buses and trains. As Diane Carman put it in The Rocky Mountain News:
The irony was almost creepy. Thousands of Republicans were gleefully chanting "Drill, baby, drill" inside a convention hall in St. Paul, Minn., some 43 years nearly to the day after the infamous Watts riots when the original chant, "Burn, baby, burn" was coined by mobs determined to incinerate Los Angeles in a fit of rage.
The delegates' apparent appetite for destruction is similarly insatiable, only unlike the burning of city buildings in 1965, the damage from rampant oil drilling and continued runaway consumption of fossil fuels now would be permanent.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, transit usage has been skyrocketing, and Andy Darrell of Environmental Defense Fund presented testimony to the Senate [PDF] about the ability of public transit to cut our dependence on foreign oil:
The transportation sector accounts for 30% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, and in many large metropolitan areas, over 70% of the added air cancer risk comes from traffic ... More than 30 peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm that exposure to traffic pollution is linked to a wide range of disease, from asthma attacks to heart disease, stunted childhood lung development, cancer, and even lowered IQ in children ...
Expanding transit is essential to reducing dependence on foreign oil. Two-thirds of oil in the United States goes to transportation, with the largest share consumed by cars and trucks. Overall, the typical public transit rider consumes on average one half of the oil consumed by an automobile rider, mainly because they can integrate transit use into their daily routine. Nationwide, public transportation saves our country over four billion gallons of fuel each year, which translates into billions of dollars in avoided gasoline costs.
Expanding transit is also a wise economic investment. It brings jobs, from construction to installation, equipment manufacturing and operation. And it relieves congestion on the streets, making for a better business climate
And if Obama is elected, we'll have someone in the White House who has a long standing commitment to Amtrak, at least -- and I'm not talking about the top of the ticket who's transportation policy paper [PDF] barely mentions public transit -- Joe Biden uses Amtrak almost everyday and is a strong supporter of Amtrak.
However, most of the households in the United States don't even have access to public transit; according to Table 962 [PDF] in the Statistical Abstract. Out of over 108 million households in the U.S. in 2005, only about 59 million have access, and of those that have access, 40 million don't even use transit. In fact, only about 11 million, or about 10 percent of all households, use public transit at least once a week.
A plan to increase energy independence will require three real actions: electrifying cars, fossil-fuel-based buses, and trains; increasing the numbers of riders among households that have access by increasing the quality and quantity of service; and increasing access to public transit by building new rail and bus lines.
Obama is not making this a major part of his platform now because it would require too much education of the voting public. It's a shame, because a program of "ride, ride, ride" would also be a way to improve the economy by rebuilding the manufacturing sector and creating millions of good jobs. It would also counter the cynical idea of "drill, drill, drill."
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
Colin Wright Posted 11:45 am
12 Sep 2008
So half the country has no access to public transit! So much for the Four Freedoms (I'm thinking freedom from want, access to work and freedom from fear, climate catastrophe.)
Also, I know you're a cyclist. How much potential do you think we have in this country for mass cycling (as in Copenhagen, Portland OR?). I know in Japan finding a place to park one's bike at the rail stations can be a bit of a challenge.
Permalink
racc Posted 12:03 pm
12 Sep 2008
More in my blog:
http://everyoneforever.org/blogger/2008/08/relentless-mar ...
Most US cities have a lot of catching up to do.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:09 pm
12 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:24 pm
12 Sep 2008
But you are right, for the vast majority of commuters, mass transit is where it's at.
"Out of over 108 million households in the U.S. in 2005, only about 59 million have access, and of those that have access, 40 million don't even use transit."
Interesting! How much has mass transit contributed to this recent demand reduction? How much present capacity is there left? How much would that reduce demand, if all present mass transit capacity were used?
How much has ride shating and biking contributed? what is the potential for oil demand reduction just from these source of savings? Biking, ridesharing, and full use of mass transit?
Hehey, sorry for all the questions. But these would seem to be good ones.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:39 pm
12 Sep 2008
Srew buses and trains. I don't want to ride them. If you want to ride them be my guest. But don't force your ideas on me.
I promise to always keep my carbon footprint as small as Al Gore - so I must be green.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 4:52 pm
12 Sep 2008
But, I have definitely leveraged the recent fuel cost increases and awareness of energy "issues" to favor con-calls and webcasts over airplanes and rental cars. Unless absolutely impossible.
I wonder how much/little we can improve efficiency by working at home?
http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/working-hours ...
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00180-skipping-drive- ...
I am a big believer in moving forward, not backward. My lifestyle is greatly improved. My standard of living increases dramatically as I "telecommute" more. So I am all for it.
Every bit helps.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:31 pm
12 Sep 2008
Somehow France survived all those years of 35 hour work weeks and one month vacations without collapsing. In fact, they had universal health care and free university education and vocational training the whole time.
I suspect that a whole lot of jobs in the US are purely redundant and a whole lot of other "highly skilled" jobs aren't really as hard to train for as we pretend.
Take a break. If everybody else plays by the same rules it isnt' going to kill you.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:43 am
13 Sep 2008
It's a sick culture that expects our soldiers to go to war so that it can keep guzzling gas as usual. Whatever happened to the attitude that won WW2?
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Lie, consume, spend, borrow, invade, and lie some more? That seems to be the McBush strategery. Is that a formula for US energy and financial security?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:07 am
13 Sep 2008
On the other hand, if Congress was smart, they'd plow billions into the current mass transit systems, so that they could at least fill up what they have, and then give them billions more to buy more trains and buses -- which would be the medium term plan. In the long-term, of course, the lines and rail should be expanded
I don't know whether the American Public Transportation Association has any reports trying to show a link between falling demand for gasoline and lower gas prices. That would be a PR coup! They should definitely do it, I'll take a look.
Saluki, assuming you want to have a conversation about this and are not just trying to insult people, buses and trains actually help those who stay in cars because 1) it reduces congestion, and 2) it reduces demand for gasoline, thus lowering the price. I assume that you would appreciate both developments.
Paleocon, I don't know why employers don't go with more telecommuting, they seem perfectly OK -- well, maybe not perfectly -- with sending service jobs to India, why not a town away? There might be an argument that when people are in one location, they create more innovations, and routine procedures can be moved along because people are in the same room, not the town over. Although you'd think that a good phone connection with a computer would work fine.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:42 am
13 Sep 2008
Urban buses generally run fixed routes. No reason that we couldn't see fully electric buses which use exchangeable battery packs.
Dedicated, fully automated battery exchange points around a city could get fossil fuels out of our city public transportation.
Permalink
animas Posted 5:24 am
13 Sep 2008
Living in South Orange County suburbs in California a few years ago, I was a constant source of amazement and amusement because I regularly used Amtrak to get around for non-work related trips. So many people who had lived there their entire lives had no idea they could do that.
I discovered a very convenient network of buses as well. They were comfortable, pretty punctual, and very non-crowded.
Which leads me to bring up another interesting aspect: Prejudice. Talking to neighbors I found out that they would never ride buses, because in their opinion only lowlife and social deviants did and I was crazy to even bring it up.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:14 am
13 Sep 2008
But back to my point: Many, if not most, Americans are selfish enough to hold Saluki's and Paleocon's points of view. They care far more about their own comfort and/or convenience than about the Earth or society as a whole. It is this attitude that must change if we are ever going to solve the immense ecological and environmental problems humans have caused and are still causing since the beginning of agriculture. Humans have a basic choice: either evolve mentally and spiritually into far less selfish, materialistic beings, or destroy life as we know it, including the human race. Half measures won't do the trick.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:30 pm
13 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:25 am
14 Sep 2008
More investment in mass transit is needed. And this is a great area for natural gas and eventually electric conversion, from oil based fuel.
Buses and trains can carry big natural gas tanks and/or big batteries. And trains can operate directly on electric rails. This sort of conversion is an inexpensive way to reduce oil demand, and start the move to end the tyranical rule of OPEC over the world energy economy.
All we need is around 4 or 5% reduction in oil demand per year to defeat the market manipulators. As that makes oil war obsolete and stabilizes fuel prices, the economy will recover, providing the capotal and confidence to keep that oil demand reduction going for 10 to 20 years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:35 am
14 Sep 2008
Even Dubai won't be safe for them as al queda turns on their own money men.
Subsidy diversion will eventually produce terror diversion. As revolution hits the Saudis. The "bring 'em on" strategery of duuhbya will be turned around.
Istead of targeting US, the terror groups will target the shieks. Appealing to the starving mobs clamouring for oil money that is no longer available.
Mass transit could do that. Win the so-called war on terror, without a soldier killed. Simply riding bikes, trains and buses, that would be patriotic.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:02 am
14 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:15 am
14 Sep 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:08 am
14 Sep 2008
Mass transportation is not necessarily efficient in terms of personal time.
IMHO we are not going to get rid of personal vehicles. Too many of us are willing to pay extra for the convenience.
So, what to do?
Electric vehicles (BEVs) really don't use much energy per mile and can be easily charged at night when we have extra available energy. And will continue to have extra energy as we build more wind farms.
Highly recyclable vehicles would take the load off our resource base. We could, for example, move to ultra-lightweight stainless steel frames. Save a lot of weight (less energy) and have a component that is 100% reusable.
In fact, stainless steel frames and electric motors have lives that greatly exceed what we experience from our current vehicles. Could be that rather than buying a new car every few years one would instead buy a new 'body'. Quick bolt-on. Melt the old one down and press out another.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:22 am
14 Sep 2008
So shift subsidies from the steel industry to carbon hiber manufacturing. Zoom pow, mass production reduces costs, making 100 mpg+ vehicles the same price as todays behemoth 2 ton gas guzzlers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:12 am
14 Sep 2008
Just like many other emerging technologies the first units are very expensive due to high R&D costs that need to be recovered. Prices fall drastically with large scale manufacturing.
BTW, Lovins makes a good point about car design. Weight and aerodynamics are the critical factors. Size is not as it does not overly impact weight and slipperiness.
Long, thin cars made from lightweight materials would give plenty room for six people and luggage. We don't have to drive tiny boxes.
--
(Stainless steel is here now. Doesn't have to wait for carbon fiber technology to be widely adapted.)
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:09 am
14 Sep 2008
"When it is time to decommission CFRPs they cannot be melted down in air like many metals. When free of vinyl (PVC or polyvinyl chloride) and other halogenated polymers, CFRPs can be thermally decomposed via thermal depolymerization in an oxygen free environment. This can be accomplished in a refinery in a one-step process. Capture and reuse of the carbon and monomers is then possible. CFRPs can also be milled or shredded at low temperature to reclaim the carbon fiber, however this process shortens the fibers dramatically. Just as with downcycled paper, the shortened fibers cause the recycled material to be weaker than the original material."
Something to get properly figured out before going full-tilt boogie on mass production.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:34 am
14 Sep 2008
And as another huge benefit, you can easily use electric cars to go 30 mph. The big problem, of course, is that most people want to be able to go faster. But if there was great rail among cities, then that argument would be severely curtailed. But it would still take a large cultural shift, obviously.
Thus, to really bring down oil use, you have driving within a town or city or densified suburb -- then those areas are linked by electric trains.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:53 am
14 Sep 2008
One good thing will be the elimination of rust. These vehicles will last a lot longer. Then the same vehicle can be upgaded every few years with a better battery or backup generation system.
I'm thinking they could start out now with a flex fuel 15 kw Honda generator that runs on gaslone or natural gas, then switch to solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generator when they become available. That would raise efficiency from 20% ro 70%.
Also lighter, quicker charging batteries with maybe an 80 mile range will be available in a few years. Start out with a 40 mile plugin range, then upgrade a few years later.
Lovins has solved the cost problem with his Fiber Forge process, it allows stamped out body parts made of carbon fiber just like they stamp out metal body parts now. Cost should be comparable once mass production is up and running.
And this hypercar design saves parts by integrating the body and frame in about 8 stamped pieces. Compare that to the complex welded frames and body panels in steel vehicles. An order of magnitude fewer parts means big savings in mass production.
Not to mention the simplicity of battery electric drive. Modern ICEs have a dozen processors controlling their operation. And on the order of 1000 parts. Battery electric is on the order of 100 parts. With a couple processors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:59 am
14 Sep 2008
Saw a Smart car today, the gas engine seemed such an anomaly, sounded like a lawn mower.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
HWilkes Posted 11:13 am
14 Sep 2008
Also lighter, quicker charging batteries with maybe an 80 mile range will be available in a few years. Start out with a 40 mile plugin range, then upgrade a few years later.
How long does it typically take for a battery to recharge on an electric car currently, and how much (if at all) could this recharge rate be increased?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:57 pm
14 Sep 2008
But overnight or at work recharge is fine for now. Gasoline, diesel, or natural gas powered onboard backup generation gives the same range as a regular gasoline vehicle.
The average daily trip is 23 miles, so a 40 mile range is going to cut gasoline consumption 80 or 90% on average.
As batteries and backup generators get better this percentage will increase. A 90% reduction across the economy as a whole be a goal that could be 10 to 20 years out. The economic threat from OPEC and Russia will be neutralized with a 4 to 5% reduction per year.
And that also takes care of the military and security threat over time. We have a means to defeat the major threats to the free world without firing a shot. Plugin hybrids, electric mass transit, and electric freight rail.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:09 am
15 Sep 2008
Although an individual trip may (but doesn't have to) take more time on public transit, on the bus, I can read, nap, or just zone out---none of which you can do while driving. I don't have to look for or pay for parking when I get to my destination. I also don't spend any money or time maintaining a car. If I "had" to get a car (for work), my quality of life and the time I have for doing things I care about (which do not include driving) would plummet.
The more things you own, the more things that own you. A car is just one more thing to own that sucks up time and money.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:29 am
15 Sep 2008
"I just don't get the "cars increase convenience and save time" argument."
I'm guessing that you live in an urban area and don't have any hobbies/activities that require you hauling more stuff than you can carry in one hand.
Try looking at how your life would be if you had a couple of kids and needed to haul them around with you as you ran your weekly errands.
Think about bringing home groceries for four as opposed to calling out for a pizza or carrying groceries for tonight's dinner for one.
Riding buses and owning little works fine for some people. Other people just don't want to live in crowded conditions and want a more complex life.
Paying for a car is a choice they make in order to have the lifestyle that appeals to them. As long as they can afford to do so they are going to avoid the bike/bus lifestyle of the urban single.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:32 am
15 Sep 2008
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:48 am
15 Sep 2008
I'm guessing that you live in an urban area and don't have any hobbies/activities that require you hauling more stuff than you can carry in one hand.
Bob, I bet mihan's response would be that you've proven his point.
The more things you own, the more things that own you. A car is just one more thing to own that sucks up time and money.
(Although I do share the aversion to crowded conditions.)
Simplify, simplify. - Thoreau
Permalink
Peter Black Posted 7:03 am
15 Sep 2008
I work with Andy Darrell and just wanted to share this interactive map I made back in July: it shows where in the US transit demand has gone up and where it has gone down between jan-may 2007 and jan-may 2008.
http://blogs.edf.org/climateatlas/2008/07/17/gas-prices-u ...
As the US becomes increasingly urbanized, funding public transit makes increasing sense.
Cheers,
Peter
Permalink
freecreditrepair Posted 3:44 pm
01 Dec 2008
Permalink