High Price of Gas and Food

[Mondo]

Originally Posted by darkangelism

the US is way to big, i mean in the city i live in its 45 miles in a straight line north south and just as wide, so a train system would need to be huge a multi billion dollar project. i dont think we need to use alt fuels for cars, if we can lower our use of oil for the main electric grid and use plug in hybrids, we could lower gas use by a huge amount

Why not invest billions in a public transportation system? 100 billion is not that much for the US economy to soak up. Russia has a massive railway network and Russia far larger and has far more remote areas than the US. Imagine how much you'd save not owning a car.

[darkangelism]

it wouldnt be a 100 billion it would be a lot more maybe 10 or 100 times as much, and we have rail network, but for it to work for commuting it needs lots of stops like a subway system. and the ridership would be very low in lots of the country. take oklahoma for example its population density is only 50 people per square mile and an effective mass transit system would need a stop every mile at least, even oklahoma city only has a density of 871 people per square mile compare that to the density of NYC which is 21,000 per square mile, the cost of running the system would be more expensive then cars, and the raw material cost would be huge.

[Vautrin]

And what is a trillion dollar anyway? The current budget deficit is much larger than that, and still the US comes up with ways to decrease revenue and increase spending. And I am quite certain that with some private sector funding, the State does not even have to pay it all themselves. And part of the ticket revenue (depending on what the agreement would be; think of concessions) could be funnelled back in the treasury, thus helping to pay for the system.

Because of the inherited lack of investment in public transportation systems in these cities, the costs rise exponentially (just imagine what 1 mile of subway station would cost in NYC, and compare that to middle of nowhere in Oklahoma state, or even Oklahoma City). Go take a look in the cities of the far East such as Seoul and others with public transport infrastructure.

The system might be expensive, but as noted before, a lot of the current costs associated with cars remain hidden. Such as the employer having to hire extra staff, because the staff can't avoid traffic jams. Car related costs (increased insurance premiums, damages, maintenance & replacement), which all put pressure on wages, which adversely affects the US economy, because of international competition. Housing costs, and costs associated with that, but for private people as for corporates. If people need a car to get to their work, do expect to see that reflected in their wage demands.

Unlike Europe social benefits in the US are not of too much concern to US employers; unemployment benefits don't last a life-time, so there is even more of a motivation for US employers to get rid of unneeded staff (because they don't have to pay via backdoors and general taxes for a permanent increase in unemployment benefits; any increase with the current legislation is temporary).

[darkangelism]

the population density of the US is tiny compared to countries that have good mass transit, South Korea has a population density 15X the US, its more dense then oklahoma city. Even look at the netherlands and oklahoma is 4X the size and one quarter the population, and there are 15 states less dense then oklahoma. The US population isnt evenly distributed, 1/3 the population lives in california,texas,florida or the corridor from washington DC to boston yet that only accounts for 1/14th the land, most of the US is farmland with a house here or there maybe a town of a 1000 people. oklahoma on has 3 cities outside of tulsa and oklahoma city over 40,000 people the rest are small little places where mass transit does no good because a town with a 1000 people wont have enough commuters.

also the budget to maintain the system would be huge. NYC MTA budget is 650 million, and in debt, realistically then need a billion a year, and thats for 1500 miles of track, to cover the US we would need 36 million miles to keep the same track per mile of NYC, so the cost would be 24T a year to maintain, not to mention a build cost. Thats twice GDP, 10X total US budget just to maintain it. So it is too expensive to put mass transit throughout the US, and its not even close to reasonable.

[Vautrin]

But in rural Oklahoma, traffic jams will be far less frequent. Not to mention that people can actually afford to live close to their work, unlike LA or NYC. Much less need for a public transportation system. The same cannot be said of the East coast (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) or the West coast.

As an aside, the high cost of the NYC MTA is also caused by the already existant urban development in NYC. In less densely populated areas the costs will be much lower.

For instance, in the Netherlands you could build a railway line all the way to the north (80 miles or so) for the same amount of money you need to build a subway from two parts of Amsterdam (15 miles at most, with quite a bit of track already in place). Public transportation between the two parts of the city will be a whole minute quicker, at the cost of about 2.0 billion euros, if the budget is sufficient (which it will not be).

[darkangelism]

well a lot of its farms and such, its not people all living closely. Yes rail is cheaper then subway, but once your too the other city how do you get around. I live 12 miles from where i work, too far to walk, so to make mass transit viable i would need a stop within half a mile of my home and of work, and so would people in between thats 24 stops and thats just a straight line. so really you would need a grid of north south and east west subway to be able to get anywhere. like to get to my parents id need a train to go 4 miles east and then take another to go 3 miles north. even just to cover the main 30X30 miles of the city you would need 900 stations if one every mile and 60 train lines, and for reasonably fast service maybe 5 or 6 trains per line. Thats a multi billion dollar project and thats one city, and even if you only need towns over say 50,000 people it would still extremely expensive.

[Vautrin]

Actually I just checked. The line is a whooping 6.0 miles. The expenses are mainly caused by the fact that a lot of buildings are already in place there, and that as a consequence highly expensive tunnel drilling techniques need to be used. And quite a bit of the track is above the ground, so the estimate would be that it costs easily 350-600 million euros to lay track a mile of track under the surface.

But for smaller towns busses and the like will do. You can even look into metro (as they use regular roads), for towns between 200.000 and 1 million people in them.

As I imagine most cities, the problem is that work is mostly concentrated in a few grids. Which means you have to have in that grid a highly expensive parking options (which space could otherwise be used as space for businesses). So the main problem would be in that specific grid.

In most cases a metro supported with busses will do.

London is bad, but imagine what it would be without the tube.

[darkangelism]

busses still use gas though

[NoTargeT]

Busses can also use biofuel, hydrogen or electricity, all of which have already been implemented at places. Next to that, even if they would use gas, they use a lot less then when all 30 people in it would travel by car themself. Plus in built up areas USA residents have a large tendency to commute alone in their car. (90+% is not uncommon in cities).
I agree though that a lot more is needed. Decentralising of bussinesses and production is one. It's simply not costeffective anymore to centralise bussinesses and have personal and good being transported to and from it. Decentralising energy production is good too. Here in the Netherlands the first cities are impementing rules about new houses only being allowed to be built if they can supply their own energy (by solar, wind or earthwarmth power). Producing electricity, hydrogen etc by replenishable energy (solar, wind, water, tide, wave) etc. is a must as well. Dutch scientists are also making good progress of developing winning electicity at places where fresh and salt water mix (e.g. where rivers meet oceans). Also recycling is important, recycling often takes a lot less energy then producing from raw materials, and offcourse energy isn't the only thing we might run out of. IMHO a complete redesign of economy and society is our only ticket out of this mess. Just being more fuel efficient alone will only slow down things, but won't help in the end, except buy us a bit more time.
When it comes to areas with a low population density the areas will need to be redesigned so people live close to their work. With gasprices rising it will pass the point where living 12 miles from work simply isn't cost efficient anymore, because fuel to get to work will start costing you half of what you'll earn. Simple as that.

[darkangelism]

its still a long time before a 12 mile commute is too expensive, right now it costs me about $2.50 a day to commute, thats less then the NYC subway, which is about $4 a day.

[Weiser]

NYC subway is only $4 a day? Is that to and from?

Toronto subway is $5.50 a day....

[darkangelism]

i took the monthly unlimited pass which is $80 and divided by 20 days of the work month, i think a daily unlimited is $7

[Luba]

I buy a monthly bus pass and we now can claim it on Income Tax as well as use it for City as well as the Regional bus. Wonderful!

[Duke]

We run alternative fuel buses in the Lower Mainland and I think they work just fine. I see them climbing steep hills with those huge cells on the top of the bus so I see no reason why they can't be used in other areas.

The only problem with Bus Service (at least here) is you simply have no idea what the Route means. Every time I get on a bus I'm about 50% positive it will take me where I'm going and that's not a recipe for success if you ask me. They really should simply highlight the bus route