The future is dense, walkable cities.

[wholesome_soul]

Public transportation is dangerous in some parts of the country like California. People don’t like sharing trains and light rail with vagrants, junkies, and crazies. The Bay Area is a case in point:

MAIN REASON FOR LOW BART RIDERSHIP, FINANCIAL ISSUES RELEASED IN NEW SURVEY​

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The Bay Area Council released results of a survey Tuesday showing safety is the main reason why BART is experiencing low ridership numbers. Before 2020, BART was averaging around 400,000 riders a weekday. Now, they are only averaging between 100,000 and 150,000 per weekday.

"The system is facing a financial hole that is very hard to fill," said Bay Area Council Chief Operating Officer John Grubb. "Without it, we could lose the entire BART system."

The survey shows ridership declined when many stopped commuting and started working from home. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic under control, ridership still struggles. The survey shows 45% of people are choosing not to ride BART because they don't think it is safe. While 17% describe BART as safe.

https://abc7news.com/bart-ridership-safety-crime-bay-area-rapid-transit/13228110/

Social issues like poverty, trauma and mental health aren't directly correlated with public transit. I would even say that they might share a variable of the defunding of public programs of a whole which target both public health and public transportation. It sucks because then more people get cars they can't afford which can contribute to stress and debt which might make it more likely that down the road they or their families experience mental health issues.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

“The survey shows 45% of people are choosing not to ride BART because they don't think it is safe. While 17% describe BART as safe.”

Ok, so the people who don’t know if it’s safe, because they don’t ride it, don’t think it’s safe. That makes sense.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Social issues like poverty, trauma and mental health aren't directly correlated with public transit. I would even say that they might share a variable of the defunding of public programs of a whole which target both public health and public transportation. It sucks because then more people get cars they can't afford which can contribute to stress and debt which might make it more likely that down the road they or their families experience mental health issues.

45% of former BART riders say they stopped because they don’t feel safe. Only 17% say it’s safe. Safety isn’t the only reason BART and other Bay Area transit systems are losing riders and bleeding red ink, but until they get crime and vagrancy under control people are going to find better ways to get around.

 

[wholesome_soul]

45% of former BART riders say they stopped because they don’t feel safe. Only 17% say it’s safe. Safety isn’t the only reason BART and other Bay Area transit systems are losing riders and bleeding red ink, but until they get crime and vagrancy under control people are going to find better ways to get around.

I understand that. My point was that, while it's important to understand why people aren't using public transportation, that isn't an argument against public transportation itself. It's like pointing out the merits of exercise, understanding why people don't exercise regularly doesn't mean exercise is inherently bad.

 

[jaF0]

Here majority of pollution isn't caused by things like elevators and the like. For AC there are a ton of architectural methods to combat temperature and use design to reduce heat and cold. It's not 100%, but there are ways to impact the use of powered temperature controls that are regional specific outside of the cookie cutter home designs used in the modern suburbs.

Look at most buildings designed before the 1950s. You'll find they are not solid blocks, but rather have many open areas in the center sections. This was so people could open windows and allow air to vent naturally. Warm air rising and all ...

There were a number of reasons they got away from that, but the biggest one was the advent of HVAC systems.

I still use the old way. I open windows upstairs and let warm air rise up and out. I open ground floor windows and doors at night when it's cool to let as much in as possible. Then I close them around 8AM to keep as much in as possible during the warmer day time. Even on 90+ degree dfays, I can avoid using AC until well after noon. Doing that lets me limit AC use to just a few hours a day in the late afternoon and early evening.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Ok, so the people who don’t know if it’s safe, because they don’t ride it, don’t think it’s safe. That makes sense.

Yes. As the survey indicates, bad experiences are causing former riders to feel unsafe. Funny how that works. Here’s how one former rider explains it:

Why even BART superfans like me are falling out of love with riding Bay Area public transit​

“And the increasing prevalence of homelessness, mental health and substance abuse issues on BART has frequently made me feel unsafe. One night, my train ground to a halt for nearly an hour as medical workers and police tried to help a person in crisis who had intentionally entered the tracks.

 

[Chernosoth]

Here majority of pollution isn't caused by things like elevators and the like. For AC there are a ton of architectural methods to combat temperature and use design to reduce heat and cold. It's not 100%, but there are ways to impact the use of powered temperature controls that are regional specific outside of the cookie cutter home designs used in the modern suburbs. It's manufacturing and transportation that cause the bulk of the issues, so the fossil fuels used for everyday living by the average person would be massively reduced. You talk about extended family living but the majority of humans and throughout history have lived this way. The isolation of modern cities and Western living arrangements honestly cause more problems that solutions from a sociological perspective.

I would also question the need for fossil fuels, though energy isn't my field. With nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, certainly the efficient use of all of these would reduce the need for fossil fuels?

Heat rises. Just ventilation won't be enough for high floors catching heat from lower floors in skyscrapers. And climate change is throwing in some extra heat for many cities.

"Nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro" are mostly hype and wishful thinking.
Nuclear energy is being phased out because it is insanely expensive, plus the radiation leftovers that can't be stored safely anywhere. The best we can do is bury the waste in some remote desert and hope we don't need that land for the next 250,000 years. Fusion still gets tremendous amounts of subsidy dumpster money after decades of testing with zero success. The recently hyped fusion item is a reaction that doubled the previous record, up to a few minutes. The heat destroyed the very expensive reaction chamber.
Wind power can work on a small scale. Before the electric grid reached farms, a farm windmill not much taller than the farmhouse provided enough juice to run a hallway lightbulb or radio. The more efficient use of wind is directly as mechanical energy, such as the Netherlands does to pump seawater out. The huge windmills with each blade longer than a standard truck trailer and the whole thing weighing around 200 tons require fossil fuels to build and maintain them. They cost more energy than they produce. They may require new roads if the turns on old roads are too sharp for the longer trailers.
Photovoltaic solar energy cells use elements that are too rare for mass production, and the sources for some of those elements are in nations that are becoming less friendly to the US. Their output also drops off a cliff when they're dusty. The most efficient use of solar energy is directly as heat and light, such as a solar cooker, which can be as simple as foil on cardboard around a pot.
Hydro works in some locations, but the most efficient use of it is still directly as mechanical energy. And climate change is affecting rainfall patterns, so building a new hydro plant is a gamble on getting enough rain to feed that river, but not so much that flooding destroys infrastructure, for decades. Many old hydroelectric dams are near the ends of durability. New towns built downstream may be destroyed when the dams break.

 

[ll74]

Heat rises. Just ventilation won't be enough for high floors catching heat from lower floors in skyscrapers. And climate change is throwing in some extra heat for many cities.

"Nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro" are mostly hype and wishful thinking.
Nuclear energy is being phased out because it is insanely expensive, plus the radiation leftovers that can't be stored safely anywhere. The best we can do is bury the waste in some remote desert and hope we don't need that land for the next 250,000 years. Fusion still gets tremendous amounts of subsidy dumpster money after decades of testing with zero success. The recently hyped fusion item is a reaction that doubled the previous record, up to a few minutes. The heat destroyed the very expensive reaction chamber.
Wind power can work on a small scale. Before the electric grid reached farms, a farm windmill not much taller than the farmhouse provided enough juice to run a hallway lightbulb or radio. The more efficient use of wind is directly as mechanical energy, such as the Netherlands does to pump seawater out. The huge windmills with each blade longer than a standard truck trailer and the whole thing weighing around 200 tons require fossil fuels to build and maintain them. They cost more energy than they produce. They may require new roads if the turns on old roads are too sharp for the longer trailers.
Photovoltaic solar energy cells use elements that are too rare for mass production, and the sources for some of those elements are in nations that are becoming less friendly to the US. Their output also drops off a cliff when they're dusty. The most efficient use of solar energy is directly as heat and light, such as a solar cooker, which can be as simple as foil on cardboard around a pot.
Hydro works in some locations, but the most efficient use of it is still directly as mechanical energy. And climate change is affecting rainfall patterns, so building a new hydro plant is a gamble on getting enough rain to feed that river, but not so much that flooding destroys infrastructure, for decades. Many old hydroelectric dams are near the ends of durability. New towns built downstream may be destroyed when the dams break.

Most of this is pathetic bullshit.

Renewable energy is better all the way around except for those who rely on their business in fossil fuels. There is no downside to making renewables the status quo. And yes, it will take time to develop new technologies that make it more effective and sustainable.

That's not a absolute stop sign to going that direction.....it just means we need to focus more in R&D

 

[Rightguide]

Where Democrats rule the future will be ghost cities with free fire zones patrolled by armed gangs hunting for something of value. The suburbs of L.A. will look like the slums of Rio.

 

[ll74]

Where Democrats rule the future will be ghost cities with free fire zones patrolled by armed gangs hunting for something of value. The suburbs of L.A. will look like the slums of Rio.

No single party has ever ruled anything.

 

[Chernosoth]

The R&D will be moving in new directions when the government can't subsidize anything. Without subsidy dumpsters, what actually works will be more apparent as the rest falls away.

 

[AlexBailey]

I’ve worked in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and alternative architecture for more than twenty years.

Something that has always been true is that implementation lags far behind our knowledge.

Some of the main obstacles to implementing new standards and technologies are business interests who will be sidelined so they resist and spin disinformation against “green” ideology.

WTF is wrong with seeking and developing clean sources and designs? The way conservatives rail against green technologies you’d thing there was a religious commandment against it.

 

[ll74]

The R&D will be moving in new directions when the government can't subsidize anything. Without subsidy dumpsters, what actually works will be more apparent as the rest falls away.

"We" includes everyone.

 

[AlexBailey]

The R&D will be moving in new directions when the government can't subsidize anything. Without subsidy dumpsters, what actually works will be more apparent as the rest falls away.

Agreed. Let’s end government subsidies for oil pipelines, drilling, coal, and the nuclear industry and all of the related cleanup. . Let’s make consumers bear those costs directly rather than letting government pay for superfund cleanup, pollution mitigation, and security for nuclear resources.

Renewables are cost effective on an even playing field, they only need subsidies to compete with the heavily subsidized petroleum industry.

If you doubt what I’m saying try designing a power system for any stand-alone application. The quickest and easiest thing to do is to install a petroleum fired generator, and the upfront cost will be low. But as you fuel it year after year it quickly becomes apparent that a higher cost upfront investment in renewables can save fuel, reliability, and maintenance, usually coming out monetarily ahead within a decade.

 

[jaF0]

Some of the main obstacles to implementing new standards and technologies are business interests who will be sidelined so they resist and spin disinformation against “green” ideology.

WTF is wrong with seeking and developing clean sources and designs? The way conservatives rail against green technologies you’d thing there was a religious commandment against it.

One example of that is coal mining towns. New industries wanted to move in and train coal miners to do new, safer, higher paying jobs. The towns resisted. We do coal. Our Daddies did coal. Our Grandaddies did coal. Coal is what we know.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Where Democrats rule the future will be ghost cities with free fire zones patrolled by armed gangs hunting for something of value. The suburbs of L.A. will look like the slums of Rio.

Reel your storyboard in a bit there, James Cameron. Let your movie breathe with better dialogue, less pyrotechnics.

 

[AlexBailey]

One example of that is coal mining towns. New industries wanted to move in and train coal miners to do new, safer, higher paying jobs. The towns resisted. We do coal. Our Daddies did coal. Our Grandaddies did coal. Coal is what we know.

Black lung is a way of life!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Where Democrats rule the future will be ghost cities with free fire zones patrolled by armed gangs hunting for something of value. The suburbs of L.A. will look like the slums of Rio.

That’s actually the fault of Republicans.

 

[Paul_Chance]

As someone who lives in the bay area and periodically uses BART, I'd say it's typical urban environment sketchy, not markedly unsafe. You get some crazy on all public transportation, which is one of the reasons a lot of people won't take it. BART however is more of a regional commuter train system than what we think of as classic urban transportation. It's not the equivalent of some of the subway or tram systems in other urban environments.

 

[AlexBailey]

As someone who lives in the bay area and periodically uses BART, I'd say it's typical urban environment sketchy, not markedly unsafe. You get some crazy on all public transportation, which is one of the reasons a lot of people won't take it. BART however is more of a regional commuter train system than what we think of as classic urban transportation. It's not the equivalent of some of the subway or tram systems in other urban environments.

BART. Bay Area Rapid Transit : electric powered public transportation since 1972.

I don’t live in the area anymore but rode it solo regularly as a kid and my parents used it for daily commuting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit

 

[Bray123]

WTF is wrong with seeking and developing clean sources and designs? The way conservatives rail against green technologies you’d thing there was a religious commandment against it.

There is, and it was written by big industry.

I live in an area where old coal mines are now all closed and while there were issues at the time nobody wants to go back. There were proposals to open a new mine a few years ago and there was uproar. Even the old hospitals dedicated to lung diseases are shut down.

My old holiday home (I sold it 2019 as covid came in) on an island with plenty of wind was in a small village that ran on a single windmill and it wasn't that big. Some properties may have had solar to help, but it managed really well.

 

[jaF0]

I grew up in a major metro area with forms of transit, mostly diesel busses. They went where they went, when they went. You had to adjust your schedule to theirs. That meant you may have to leave home an hour or more early or stay at work or school late. You may have had to make several transfers. You always had to hope each one was on time and they didn't miss the transfer points or times. You still had traffic jams, often of many busses.

If you were late to school or work, 'the bus was late' wasn't acceptable.

 

[LLCox]

When fifteen minute cities arrive it will be peaceful here in the mountains again. Screw all the traffic.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I grew up in a major metro area with forms of transit, mostly diesel busses. They went where they went, when they went. You had to adjust your schedule to theirs. That meant you may have to leave home an hour or more early or stay at work or school late. You may have had to make several transfers. You always had to hope each one was on time and they didn't miss the transfer points or times. You still had traffic jams, often of many busses.

If you were late to school or work, 'the bus was late' wasn't acceptable.

This is why it's so important to ban private cars to from dedicated bus lanes. A good bus system can move people faster than individual cars, but you have to keep the cars from blocking the buses.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I’ve worked in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and alternative architecture for more than twenty years.

Something that has always been true is that implementation lags far behind our knowledge.

Some of the main obstacles to implementing new standards and technologies are business interests who will be sidelined so they resist and spin disinformation against “green” ideology.

WTF is wrong with seeking and developing clean sources and designs? The way conservatives rail against green technologies you’d thing there was a religious commandment against it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking and developing clean sources and designs of energy production. In fact if it is sensibly brought forth as an option and it actually works and is cost effective bring it on.

What is wrong is politicizing an issue by both parties. One jamming it down our throats and the other attempting to slow or block it. Frankly we all knew there were issues with Lithium Ion batteries all the way back to battery operated power tools catching fire on the charger, the same with scooters and hover boards. Why didn't anyone think of that before unleashing electric cars on the road with 600 plus pounds of lithium batteries in them? The technology just isn't ready yet.