<When Is "Global Peak Energy?" According to Publicly Available Data, Probably Sooner Than You Think The Oil Drum "....... We Wasted a Day of Sunlight!">
<DrumBeat: September 10, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 12, 2007>

229 comments on DrumBeat: September 11, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

jokuhl on September 11, 2007 - 11:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"..if light rail has such great potential and appeal, why aren't the ones mentioned more successful?"

Because they were being examined during this period of extremely cheap gasoline. We haven't had the compelling NEED to make our transportation more economical. Not only do we have the momentum of this illusion that cars give us 'freedom' (cut to bumper to bumper images, circling blocks umpteen times to find a spot, paying for fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc.. ), but it was also being forcefully 'endorsed' by investments in roadway saturation and not transit saturation, both from government and industry. Yes, consumers made choices, but what choices were presented to them, what kind of public information helped form their priorities?

Those cities that have developed light rail at least have a degree of flexibility, whereas towns and cities that ripped up their tracks and terraformed exit ramps over/through old rail pathways will be facing anything from mighty bills to possibly extinction depending on how they can adapt to changed fuel-transport-food realities at the speed that the changes hit us.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on September 12, 2007 - 2:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unfotunately there is not much flexibility in the light rail system itself since, as the article maintains, peoples workplaces are as far flung as their living arrangements.

Light rail would be best suited to locales where the centers of commerce are centrally located. I doubt many places in the USA can lay claim to that condition.

Asking society to reformulate its economic activity along a mass transit light rail while under the crushing auspices of Peak Oil seems a bit farfetched to me.

No, conservation is the key here, hybrid buses, rationing, rideshares and maybe even private industry will step up, GM is saying the Volt will be ready for road testing next year.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070911/BUSINESS01/7091...

Like it or not we are stuck with an unbelievably large prior investment in the form of our road and highway system.

What makes sense is to leverage that investment by setting high CAFE requirements for every vehicle using that system, including long haul and commercial trucking which should be phased out in conjunction with expanding the heavy rail system for moving goods and materials.

Some may argue that Jeavons Paradox will offset any gains in fuel economy but that has yet to be tested in the face of declining resources.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on September 12, 2007 - 8:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Light rail would be best suited to locales where the centers of commerce are centrally located. I doubt many places in the USA can lay claim to that condition

... Asking society to reformulate its economic activity along a mass transit light rail while under the crushing auspices of Peak Oil seems a bit farfetched to me."

And yet you still have to compare that to 'Asking society to continually MAINTAIN it's mammoth and capillary system of paved roadways and individual vehicles, and the resulting expenses of trucking ourselves and our supplies out to all these diffused points' .. while under the crushing auspices of Peak Oil. The original setup is what's farfetched. The amount of cheap energy we've had access to is outrageous, but now we're built around it as our central assumption. The volt may be great, but it still needs a terribly costly road system in place to do us much good.

Yes, we need massive conservation and road-based mass-transit options as ways to get by as we figure out how to live in a world with more modest energy availability, but we also need to be able to consider the big pills that must be swallowed. We need durable and efficient transit systems designed for the long view, and rail and light rail have proven themselves in this. It's not a silver bullet, but it is the most energy-efficient way to move things over land and must still play an essential role in a long-term investment to keep things moving. I believe in Transit-Oriented-Development, and structuring the communities around the most efficient forms of transportation, but this is a gradual shift at both ends. You add some trolley lines, some people can walk and bike to them, but there are still roads, buses and cars to cover the distance, as long as you can afford to.. Businesses that aren't near train lines may tend to move closer, lobby for spurs, set up shuttles.

We've got to make a very poorly designed country come back in line. Rail and Light rail will be an incentive for that, with a real capacity for delivering transit with reliably few calories. This is a huge country, and it's completely insane that we have any argument about the sense in using the most efficient and durable means to get around it. Take your bike to the train station.. I want an electric car, too, but I'm more than happy to plan for using the 21st century versions of these 19th century technologies for the lion's share of my transport needs. It's funny how that article quoted the academic (Stanford?) saying rail is a step backwards, and we need to go forward. Going from a less-efficient mode to a more efficient mode is going to save you fuel in either direction, forward or reverse. But of course, reverse is anathema in a country that is addicted to racing around in ever-faster circles..

Regards,
Bob Fiske

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on September 12, 2007 - 10:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Very well stated Bob Fiske !

Just to restate some obvious points. Almost all US cities (all ?) were once centrally located (remember "downtowns") and those bones still remain. The "Creative Destruction" of American economy and Urban Form will accelerate post-Peak Oil IMHO. We will NOT be frozen in whatever form we find ourselves in today.

Those offices and industries that are located non-sustainably will either relocate or stop. With reduced economic activity, some economic centers will be abandoned. Those office buildings 3 blocks from a rail station are unlikely to be abandoned.

The "market" will reform rapidly around rail when it is valued. Washington DC added a new station (New York Avenue) to an old line. A half dozen office buildings sprang up !

After two decades of minimal TOD around Miami's first elevated Rapid Rail. Miami voted to expand it greatly (to 103 miles). In 2004, I counted 15 of 23 construction cranes within 3 blocks of a Metro station.

Trees will not stop growing post-Peak Oil. Construction will slow but not stop. We could build twice as many homes with half the resources as we do today

I figure that a high efficiency 5-plex (2 story. 3 + 2 units, average 450 sq ft each, no parking except bicycles) would take about as much resources as the average 2,497 sq ft single family home in the USA with supporting sewers, streets, etc. and garage required for sprawl. The extra insulation, geothermal heat pump, expensive windows of the post-Peak construction could offset the energy required for the supporting infrastructure of the sprawl. Add some 3 story homes into the mix as well.

I have read that retail space/capita has expanded almost 10x since 1950. I can believe this. Shopping malls with a sea of parking and no transit will likely empty.

Buses are not a solution, except as short feeders to rail, due to their relatively high use of FF.

Best Hopes for Energy Efficiency !

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Spaceman on September 18, 2007 - 6:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hopefully this gets to you, I've been away for a few days.

This is a huge country, and it's completely insane that we have any argument about the sense in using the most efficient and durable means to get around it.

When it comes to separating people from their cars, you have yet to see the insanity.
As much ingrained into JoeSixpacks non-negotiable right to unlimited amounts of cheap gas is his right to drive any type of vehicle he damn well pleases.
So unless you are advocating bringing this version of T.O.D. to being over at minimum the next 50 years or so you are badly overestimating Joe's ability to see the "sense" in your proposal.
No matter WHAT the reason, people will rebel at the loss of their private transportation.
It would take a HUGE propanganda effort to convince Americans otherwise.

Also missing in the publics mind about the coming scarcity is the appalling lack of leadership neccessary to take on the powerful vested interests aligned against rail (although the limits rail imposes on travel would be an appealing benefit to any future dictator "Your papers, please!").

The doomer in me scoffs at the notion "it was done in 1907, it can be done in 2007" attached to rail.
What was done a century ago was done while we were on the upslope of energy and materials production.
Previous societies that have peaked have rarely, if ever, entered the downslope in a peaceable, cooperative fashion.

So IMO you've got quite a bit arguing left to do.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

229 comments on DrumBeat: September 11, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version