Pelosi: Our Coasts Need Lasting Protection from Oil and Gas Drilling

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If the Democrats can figure out how to be energy independent in 10 years, I'll pledge lifelong allegiance to them. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
10 years is a bit of a stretch. But this is politics we are talking about. You have to take everything as an exagerration. The Democrats can't get us off of oil dependance if the technology isn't there. That said, government involvement could really help push us towards fuel cells, etc.

The tech is really coming along. Look at recent hydrogen prototypes. Several car manufacturers are working towards it (some more than others). It will happen, and the government can make it happen sooner, so eh. Political BS aside, I am glad the Democrats see this as important.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Public transit is as viable as ever, but once again you have bought into large corporate BS with an ethics problem to boot.

Here in Minnesota we just passed an amendment to fund more mass transit.



If you all are lucky you still have track under a few layers of asphalt, a lot of cities have miles left usable once dug up. :thumbsup:
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Too bad that mass transit, like everything else the government does, is mired in politics. The light rail that was built in Minneapolis is a disaster. Hardly anybody uses it because the location is a joke. It's great if you want to go from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. Too bad that whole corridor is filled with... nothing. Nobody actually uses it to get to work because nobody lives there. Unless you're in Bloomington and work downtown (or live in Minneapolis and work in Bloomington, LMAO) it's pretty much useless. In the end it was expensive and wasteful.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Too bad that mass transit, like everything else the government does, is mired in politics. The light rail that was built in Minneapolis is a disaster. Hardly anybody uses it because the location is a joke. It's great if you want to go from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. Too bad that whole corridor is filled with... nothing. Nobody actually uses it to get to work because nobody lives there. Unless you're in Bloomington and work downtown (or live in Minneapolis and work in Bloomington, LMAO) it's pretty much useless. In the end it was expensive and wasteful.


Yeah, I looked it up and it seems like some little line on a path, a tourist thing not how to get around.

It looked like the joke you describe.

Our transit here makes profit usually. -But we had infrastructure left and stuff that was always used.

And million of folks depend on it every day because it is everywhere 24/7 usually 5-10 mins wait.

More autos you have driving around the less profitable public transit is.

Freeways have screwed urban areas, can't expect a prosperous city when this happened to it for example.

America really needs to get with smart urban planning, it is going to bite us in the ass sooner or later.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
I'd have a hard time believing your public transit makes a profit. Perhaps on the surface it does, but if you dug in I imagine you'd find that it's rather heavily subsidized at some point in the process. Not that there's anything wrong with that, a public transit system is a local public service (read: not one that the feds have any business creating or regulating but a municipality has every right to run) and it's only fair that it's subsidized to some extent - the oil industry certainly is. Personally, I'd rather see both compete without hiding the cost of either. Regardless of how people get around, the actual cost of going to the store to buy one item is hard to discern.

Yet another reason I can't stand big government. Whether it's big right wing government lining the pockets of their friends at oil companies or big left wing government subsidizing the cost of fuel so it's "affordable" for the people (or in the US, a little bit of each) they both hide the real cost of a product and skew the free market, leaving little incentive to change. In a truly free market, it's possible we'd already be off oil as our major fuel source. At the very least, individuals would have a more direct view of the cost of their transportation and would adjust it accordingly.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,423
478
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Too bad that mass transit, like everything else the government does, is mired in politics. The light rail that was built in Minneapolis is a disaster. Hardly anybody uses it because the location is a joke. It's great if you want to go from downtown Minneapolis to the Mall of America. Too bad that whole corridor is filled with... nothing. Nobody actually uses it to get to work because nobody lives there. Unless you're in Bloomington and work downtown (or live in Minneapolis and work in Bloomington, LMAO) it's pretty much useless. In the end it was expensive and wasteful.


Yeah, I looked it up and it seems like some little line on a path, a tourist thing not how to get around.

It looked like the joke you describe.

Our transit here makes profit usually. -But we had infrastructure left and stuff that was always used.

And million of folks depend on it every day because it is everywhere 24/7 usually 5-10 mins wait.

More autos you have driving around the less profitable public transit is.

Freeways have screwed urban areas, can't expect a prosperous city when this happened to it for example.

America really needs to get with smart urban planning, it is going to bite us in the ass sooner or later.

Its not a joke, but a start. They want to build more train lines.
What Boberfett failed to mention is that the train also stops at the airport and that its used to transfer passengers between the terminals.

If you work downtown Minneapolis, and live in bloomington, you can park at the Mall of America and take the train.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Its not a joke, but a start. They want to build more train lines.
What Boberfett failed to mention is that the train also stops at the airport and that its used to transfer passengers between the terminals.

If you work downtown Minneapolis, and live in bloomington, you can park at the Mall of America and take the train.

Considering the cost of the project thus far, I'd hardly call the relatively puny benefits of getting people from the MoA to downtown a success.

In addition, who in their right mind is going to take the light rail from downtown to the airport? Downtown Minneapolis just isn't that large a residential area. It's getting bigger with the condo construction, but most airport traffic is still from the suburbs. In which case people aren't going to park downtown and ride the rail. As for going betwen terminals, a shuttle bus could have easily run between HHH and Lindbergh without spending billions of dollars.

There were any number of other corridors that would have yielded a far greater return* but they went with Hiawatha. Debacle.


* Just off the top of my head, coming from Minneapolis, going from where people actually live to where they work

394
35W heading South
55 heading West

Maybe they had some grand plan of revitalizing Hiawatha, but shouldn't they worry about current residents instead of possible future ones?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
This is no different then many other cities, it is just a matter of making it faster to take rail then use a car, not very difficult seeing as rail does not have to wait for lights epically when underground. High fees for parking and pulling down freeways is the best start.

Also losing the freeways allows for the city to revitalize and for people to start moving back into long abandoned community that are now parking lot wastelands with crap value.

I do not see why this would be a problem, you all do not have groundwater close to the surface seeing as you are inland nor do you have seismic issues.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: K1052
"Democrats intend to achieve energy independence within 10 years"

I intend to have a billion dollars in my bank account and sleep with different smoking hot 20somthings every night.

*wakes up*

Anything is possible, you just have to 'believe' :p

There is an easy way to power our future, we just need to invent a way to generate electricity using high minded rhetoric.

Being an FL resident I do have some stake in this but I see no other alternative at this point, drilling offshore is inevitable, the best we can hope for is that all due diligence is being done to safeguard against disasters. Failing to secure energy resources for the future would basically signal the death knell for modern society.


I'm a resident of FL as well and the amount of new oil offshore would be a drop in the big oil bucket.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,423
478
126
I'd like to have been a mouse in the corner for the first rail funding. As I recall we got Federal Funds to help pay for the rail. I bet the airport was a selling point.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is no different then many other cities, it is just a matter of making it faster to take rail then use a car, not very difficult seeing as rail does not have to wait for lights epically when underground. High fees for parking and pulling down freeways is the best start.

Also losing the freeways allows for the city to revitalize and for people to start moving back into long abandoned community that are now parking lot wastelands with crap value.

I do not see why this would be a problem, you all do not have groundwater close to the surface seeing as you are inland nor do you have seismic issues.

I live in Chicago and we have the most extensive mass transit system outside of NYC. Subays, elevated trains, commuter rail, buses, the works.

Building or expanding rail service in built up urban areas is extremely expensive, subway doubly so. Hell, I think they are up to 600M alone on the Brown line expansion here so far and they aren't even adding any new trackage. Just doing LONG deferred maintenance (big chunks of the line haven't been touched for 50+ years) and lengthening some platforms.

I personally think high speed commuter rail along dedicated lines is a better answer than "pulling down the freeways" which is just impractical (not to mention unpopular) at this time. Again, this only works in areas that are centrally planned. Large scale rail mass transit in someplace like LA is just not realistic. LA is a city that needs a replacement for the gasoline powered automobile.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
*frantically looks for the section in the constitution which grants the feds the power to take our money then give it back to us only if we use it the way they tell us*

I'm not opposed to public transportation. I'm opposed to the way it's done.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
*frantically looks for the section in the constitution which grants the feds the power to take our money then give it back to us only if we use it the way they tell us*

I'm not opposed to public transportation. I'm opposed to the way it's done.

I kind of agree. The CTA and the Mayor's office is far too insulated from the desires of the city's people here (Chicago). Deferring maintenance on existing infrastructure should also require the approval of the legislature instead of being an administrative decision.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is no different then many other cities, it is just a matter of making it faster to take rail then use a car, not very difficult seeing as rail does not have to wait for lights epically when underground. High fees for parking and pulling down freeways is the best start.

Also losing the freeways allows for the city to revitalize and for people to start moving back into long abandoned community that are now parking lot wastelands with crap value.

I do not see why this would be a problem, you all do not have groundwater close to the surface seeing as you are inland nor do you have seismic issues.

I live in Chicago and we have the most extensive mass transit system outside of NYC. Subays, elevated trains, commuter rail, buses, the works.

Building or expanding rail service in built up urban areas is extremely expensive, subway doubly so. Hell, I think they are up to 600M alone on the Brown line expansion here so far and they aren't even adding any new trackage. Just doing LONG deferred maintenance (big chunks of the line haven't been touched for 50+ years) and lengthening some platforms.

I personally think high speed commuter rail along dedicated lines is a better answer than "pulling down the freeways" which is just impractical (not to mention unpopular) at this time. Again, this only works in areas that are centrally planned. Large scale rail mass transit in someplace like LA is just not realistic. LA is a city that needs a replacement for the gasoline powered automobile.


Underground right of way is not cheap at all, but it is the most efficient way to get around bar none.

Transit is one of those things you cannot half-ass, noone will use a service that makes them have to walk long distances, wait for a train, or have to take buses all over the place.

Problem is you cannot have a centralized city if it is cut to shreds by previously mentioned freeway wastelands, it takes big changes, but in the long run the city prospers.

Thats the big problem, noone is planning for 50 years ahead, they are slapping up more and more freeways killing the point of driving downtown in the first place.

American cities are a mess, suburbs are a disaster waiting to happen, big changes weill have to happen sooner or later.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

As if destroying natural habitat for a few years worth of energy resources is a good way to go....Wake up.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Put in multi-lane people movers.
Have them operate at different speeds. 5 mph apart - 3 person wide each lane.
Allow people to step up/down to the different speed belt (just like crossing lanes).
Higher capacity/mile - electric driven - still fairly fast - no real gridlock

Those that actualy need a vehicle to transport would still have roads, but much more limited.

Optional roofing to screen the elements.

Cheaper than light rail - faster than buses - more enegery efficient.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

First step is to cut the greedmongers off from the black heroin.

Oh and please tell us oh wise one how you do that.

Throw the oil man out of office. Get the oil men out of washington. Force them to stop buying up and shelving better ideas.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
They've already proven that what they SAY they are going to do and what they ACTUALLY do are two different things.

Restricting access to natural resources is not the way to energy independence. Creating alternatives to oil is a good thing but for now we still need it.

Yeah well Bush said the whole preemptive war thing was the answer. He was wrong. Our turn. bu bye.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
6-8$ a gallon of gas sounds good to me for non-business purposes.

Get you suburbanites off your lazy asses.

For those driving SUVs or other gas guzzling vehicles I would support that. Especially those in your face hummer drivers. I love giving those guys the middle finger! Anything getting 30 MPG or higher should get a break though. It's not our fault.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is no different then many other cities, it is just a matter of making it faster to take rail then use a car, not very difficult seeing as rail does not have to wait for lights epically when underground. High fees for parking and pulling down freeways is the best start.

Also losing the freeways allows for the city to revitalize and for people to start moving back into long abandoned community that are now parking lot wastelands with crap value.

I do not see why this would be a problem, you all do not have groundwater close to the surface seeing as you are inland nor do you have seismic issues.

I live in Chicago and we have the most extensive mass transit system outside of NYC. Subays, elevated trains, commuter rail, buses, the works.

Building or expanding rail service in built up urban areas is extremely expensive, subway doubly so. Hell, I think they are up to 600M alone on the Brown line expansion here so far and they aren't even adding any new trackage. Just doing LONG deferred maintenance (big chunks of the line haven't been touched for 50+ years) and lengthening some platforms.

I personally think high speed commuter rail along dedicated lines is a better answer than "pulling down the freeways" which is just impractical (not to mention unpopular) at this time. Again, this only works in areas that are centrally planned. Large scale rail mass transit in someplace like LA is just not realistic. LA is a city that needs a replacement for the gasoline powered automobile.


Underground right of way is not cheap at all, but it is the most efficient way to get around bar none.

Transit is one of those things you cannot half-ass, noone will use a service that makes them have to walk long distances, wait for a train, or have to take buses all over the place.

Problem is you cannot have a centralized city if it is cut to shreds by previously mentioned freeway wastelands, it takes big changes, but in the long run the city prospers.

Thats the big problem, noone is planning for 50 years ahead, they are slapping up more and more freeways killing the point of driving downtown in the first place.

American cities are a mess, suburbs are a disaster waiting to happen, big changes weill have to happen sooner or later.

Actually IL, is hardly putting up any new highway except for connecting I355 from I55 to I80 (which should have been done when the thing was first built). The rest is reconstruction or open road tolling refits.

Lots of people use the commuter rail here too. Unless they live close buy or are in our operations/construction department pretty much everyone in my office uses it.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium


Throw the oil man out of office. Get the oil men out of washington. Force them to stop buying up and shelving better ideas.

What better ideas are those exactly?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Throw the oil man out of office. Get the oil men out of washington. Force them to stop buying up and shelving better ideas.
You mean like the 100mpg carburetor and electric car? :roll:
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The first thing we would have to do is quit importing and exporting.

Lots of fuel is wasted in the act of broad commerce.

Second. We go back to living near where we work.

Realize that tourism is dead and quit worrying about it.

Eliminate the monetary system and go back to bartering.

Eliminate allowing those to live in a climate that requires heating in the winter.

This is a good start.

You can tell who owns oil stock around here! Mwaowowowowwwwwww. :(