And no LIDAR? How will they manage?
2 Likes
Or bike-rickshaws with electrical assist for going uphill and regenerative braking for when you have to limit your speed or stop downhill.
3 Likes
So there is a big wrinkle in the environmental concerns about shortening commutes, using public transportation, etc. You really don’t want people living near industrial areas, and you really don’t want to change zoning requirements and planning to allow residential areas to grow into industrial areas or vice versa. People will always need to commute to and from these places without living in a dorm in the Chinese model to improve the environment. On top of that, there is a sizable amount of industrial areas that cannot feasibly allow most forms of transportation for security and safety concerns.
So while that’s not something to think about for hundreds of millions of people in the US, it’s definitely something that effects millions. And it’s part of the reason things are really complicated.
2 Likes
Agreed. The solution is never going to be one-size-fits-all.
I would like to see more white-collar workers off the roads, working from home maybe half the week and coming in to the office for meetings. A lot of people have to be at a certain location for their job, but a lot more don’t.
6 Likes
The solution to toxic industrial pollution is to reduce toxic industrial pollution through democratic curbs on pollution, not spreading polluted industrial sprawl across the landscape. That’s insane.
2 Likes
To be fair, I don’t think that @emo_pinata is advocating for the continued spread of industrial production, but rather saying we need to deal with reality. I don’t think that precludes changing our economy from an industrial base too.
4 Likes
I don’t think you know much about urban planning, industry, or pollution to say that. Industrial areas are zoned separate from residential because it doesn’t have noise ordinances, operating hours, heavy traffic (compared to other areas), etc. Not all “industry” is some sort of machination with a cartoonish oil mass voiced by Tim Curry destroying the environment around it, and commercial property taxes are what pay for conservation areas and ensure there is a percentage of preserved natural land in basically every state. Almost every company is compliant with regulations and take them seriously (it tends to be repeat offenders too big to get charged), and most companies pride themselves on exceeding regulation standards (after all, they have to retain their employees who don’t like to work for places that don’t).
On top of that, industry is 12% of the US economy and another 12% is dependent on that industry for its success too. While there are needed changes to how industrial areas do what they do, it’s never going to go away whatsoever and continuing to focus on regulating pollution is probably the least effective means of improving the planet’s environment when it is all tied together.
2 Likes
I’ve worked in ag, heavy and light industry all my life. I’ve lived in rural, small cities, and have lived in Portland for nearly ten years, so…
Then, flatly, your point doesn’t make much sense. Removing personal transport and not designating industrial space will kill far more people and animals than the opposite.
2 Likes
We need better noise-mitigation for residential areas, regardless.
1 Like
Well, let’s look at real-life places with industry where cars are and always have been rare, or at least more rare than North America.
You mentioned Chinese-style dorms, where essentially there is no commute.
Then there’s the Dutch model, where people may have cars but they don’t necessarily drive them to work. People ride bikes, or use a combination of bikes and public transport.
Or there’s what’s common in India, and to some extent in San Francisco too for software company employees: workers commute by (motor)bike or public transport to a central place by a certain time and then take a private company-owned bus to the work site. One of the gigs I did in India was in a clothing dye factory which was gradually being converted to a call centre, and that’s how all the employees travelled there. It had three shifts with 24-hour uptime.
So industrial zoning and a lack of private cars can and does co-exist already in various configurations around the world. But again, infrastructure is vital.
1 Like
Feel free to continue weaseling around the neighborhood of personal insults this thread. I won’t see it.
5 Likes
Ok, but San Francisco tech companies are not really industry they are light-industry office parks. There’s little reason for personal transport in an office park. However, we will always need some form of paper, electricity, wood, medicine (though the end of the medicine production line can be just about anywhere), Metal, etc. And Dutch heavy industrial companies are most famous for shoving their production facilities anywhere but the Netherlands. Dorms mean you must be single or leave your family elsewhere while living on site for at least the business week, India also has one of the largest truck fleets in the world operating all over the place for heavy industrial and construction use.
My entire point is that you can’t just abandoned personal transportation. Even if you shuttle employees onto sites there is an entire commercial vehicle trade that is necessary. I literally brought up an application that impacts millions of people in the US alone that can’t feasibly abandon cars - even if you switch to electric you just push the problem somewhere else.
1 Like
Shrug. That’s not why I’m here.
And my point is that it is feasible – because it is happening right now – to move people from residential areas to industrial zones other than being entirely dependent on personal vehicles.
It doesn’t matter that the San Franciscans are not going to a smelter or a factory, or what the Dutch are up to when they get to work. They live in a residential area and go to a differently-zoned work area, and they don’t use cars to do it.
Again, no one solution will suit all cases and all geographies. It will be possible to show for any case of using common transport that it doesn’t work for all situations.
But that is also true of personal car use, today.
There are far too many places where cars are the only option simply because the area was developed after the advent of the car, most likely in the 1950s-1980s when it was just taken for granted that you could afford one and wanted one, because wasn’t that everyone? And that’s bad planning, no matter how many bona fide cases there are where cars really are necessary, as opposed to just being the default.
2 Likes
Besides, how would businesses screen potential employees if they couldn’t ask for “reliable transportation”?
“Before asking commuters to abandon their cars, we must first improve mass transit capacity and reliability,” a draft of the report says.
The governor is picking up a cause that was championed by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in 2008, but that met stiff resistance. It died in the State Assembly without coming to a vote. The current mayor, Bill de Blasio, has said that he favors a tax on millionaires and has argued that congestion pricing hurts the middle class and poor who live outside Manhattan and drive into it.
The report dismissed those claims, saying only 4 percent of residents of other boroughs commute to jobs in Manhattan in a vehicle, or approximately 118,000 residents. Of those, it said, more than half were higher income individuals, and fewer than 5,000 of them would qualify as working poor.
Yeah, mixed mode light rail is an unfathomable idea.
Truck deliveries and rampant construction routinely block traffic. Midtown traffic now crawls at an average of 4.7 miles per hour, down from 6.5 miles per hour five years ago.
1 Like
That income level breakdown is interesting. In my neighbourhood we have a downtown express that costs twice the regular fare; I knew someone who took it because she didn’t like riding with the hoi polloi on the streetcar.
It’s good to keep in mind how cultural “public transit is for poor people” is. It used to be transit was for wealthier people who didn’t want street mud on their clothes. They found Toronto transit tickets belonging to a second class passenger in the Titanic wreck:
3 Likes
OK, but that’s why I’m bringing it up. I am well aware white collar jobs don’t need personal transport, and I would hop on alternate transport options if they were available for me. So it does matter a lot that San Franciscans are not going to a smelter or a factory when millions of people work in factories or to support them as their primary income. Literally 20% of the US economy and a larger portion of the global economy is dependent on jobs those kinds of job. Right now the most environmentally friendly places still exploit the non-friendly places, which tends to involve exploiting the wealth and health of the third world to achieve their local results.
I also never claimed it can’t be improved, but you will never (for instance) be able to bring public transportation into hazardous locations. Electric vehicles become less energy efficient (overall) the heavier the load becomes (outside of special cases like trains, but trains also can’t deliver a load to a site directly).
Also, what I have been saying has nothing to do with the last points you are making. I agreed both up-thread and during this back and forth that most uses of vehicles is unnecessary. The entire reason I bring this up is because the bona fide cases being larger than anyone really thinks about. Right now everything around you and everything around me, and all the medical care you receive, and what we are using to communicate all depend on heavy industrial use.
As far as pre-1950s-80s goes the US used dormitories, slave labor, worker death, even more fuel, etc. to make up what technology could not accommodate. Modern life comes with a lot of things that we do hold dear that could not exist in previous decades. And what I’m advocating for (careful planning and trying to meet the demand for current and future growth in technology and population) would slow down the rampant construction and expansion more than real estate costs have, but it is a problem that can’t be hand-waved away by saying other places have solved it when they have not. The closest solution isn’t permanently feasible for other reasons - allowing industrial sites to be pressing against agricultural and residential sites, forcing employees to live on site during work hours, etc.
2 Likes