THE Public Infrastructure Thread (merged)

Annatar · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:04 am Post subject: Decaying infrastructure

In Sydney, where I live, my perception is that the public infrastructure is slowly decaying.
There hasn't been major extensions to the train network for several decades. Earlier this year, the train network was paralysed for a few days because a number of train drivers took industrial action by refusing to work overtime or going faster than the speed limit. I can't imagine how the public transport system will cope during an oil shock.
Hospitals are often stretched to the limit, and the aging population will make it worse. Don't get sick in New South Wales, because you may spend months or years waiting for elective surgery, or spend hours lying on an ambulance stretcher in a hospital passageway because all the doctors and nurses are too busy tending to other patients, or have medical errors inflicted on you.
We seem to be getting richer while the public infrastructure is falling apart.
_________________
Cheap oil is a RIGHT! Conservation is just letting the terrorists WIN!

gg3 · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject:

Yes, and similarly in the US, and probably in other indutrial countries.
Signs & symptoms of the decline & fall, and of population overshoot.
There is an ironic consequence of the comparative abundance of crude oil of the grade that is only fit for use as an ingredient of asphalt, compared to the grades used to produce motor fuels.
Asphalt pavement, properly done, is the best pavement. It's smoother and quieter than anything else, even concrete. It's simple to maintain, does not require lengthy closures for maintenance, and it's easy to keep clean. It can even use ground-up scrap tires as an aggregate, replacing a certain amount of gravel in the mix; and the recycled tires add to the desirable properties of the road.
The efficiency of all forms of road transport is increased by good roads, which offer lower rolling resistance than poorly built or poorly maintained roads. If you ride a bicycle this is immediately apparent.
So: fuel gets more expensive, but roads can theoretically be improved. This increases fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, and makes the use of scooters and bicycles more attractive for more people.
Envision if you will, a rational, sustainable city of the future. Powered by the new-generation fission reactors and wind turbines; with abundant light rail and electric buses; and with well-built, well-maintained roads. On those roads are a multitude of vehicles, among them a vastly increased number of bicycles and scooters. It could happen; all it takes is the will.

Petro · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 375

With the advances of communications etc., and considering this 'fission' reactor scenario, there is no need for all this commuting. Dispurse people away from centralized cities, let humanity adopt a distributed existence closley involved in their local nexus everything else can be accomplished with technology. What the hell good is a cell phone and 64bit athlon sitting here at my desktop if I have to rush into some highrise and use another to matter. Unless its to sell the car to drive; sell the fuel to power the car; charge a toll to drive on the roads; charge to park; charge to medicate; charge for the license; charge for the inspection; charge for...charge for...forced to...pay for....hrmmmm Clever those people who managed to keep slavery alive even after the war...

DefiledEngine · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 292

But you can't transport much food and water with a bicycle, now can you? Doesn't it take more energy to ride a bike anyway? How many people are gladly going to go to a more energy demanding way of life?

Concerned · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Sep 23, 2004 Posts: 1553

AA · Tar Sands Joined: May 15, 2004 Posts: 46

The western world's public infrastructure is starting to crumble. It was built back in the 50's and 60's, huge capital outlays, that probably couldn't be done today.
What is happening isn't oil going up. Its been low for awhile and our public society was falling apart during the extreme lows of the 90's just the same. What is going on is that socialism itself is a failed ideology. Government is an extremely useful tool for protecting life, liberty and property.
When the government gets involved in religion, healthcare, education, drug wars, retirement savings or whatever new fangled initiative the politicians dream up it ultimately fails. This isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be the last.
We look at the private sector like these computers we are talking to each other on, and each year they get faster, cheaper and can do more things. Each year we go to the movies and the quality of the special effects increases. Each new computer game we play is better then the year before. Any of these free industries, without big brother regulating, taxing, outlawing etc.. are doing wonderful.

Meanwhile we look at our failing hospitals, people are dying in the emergency rooms in Canada, we look at our failing education systems where each year the kids come out worse and worse.. we look at our public debts as they grow and grow, and the baby boom hasn't even started retiring yet.
The problem isn't resources, the ingenuity of our people.. its we still have the failed system of socialism. Just what brought down the Soviet Union.

Aaron · Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:04 am Post subject:

Note -

Barbara · Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:17 am Post subject:

AA,
I agree with you. When our western govts were still scared of Soviet Union and people rioting, then they took care of public services. But since the socialism crumbled, they are back to be slaves of corporations. Wanna travel? Buy a car. Wanna get cured? Buy an insurance. Wanna go to school? Pay millions.
What are you going to do? Rioting? HA HA! You're too busy to try to mantain you family alive to feel like rioting. And after all, there's no socialist country to come to rescue you and menacing our govts.

We're screwed. The sooner peak oil will happen, the better we'll manage it.
_________________
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.

Kingcoal

Every year, 60% of the world's oil is used for transportation. It's pretty self-evident that any consumption reduction program has to address private automobiles in particular. There have been many ideas put forth, such as hydrogen or compressed air powered cars, I think this misses the point, which is efficiency. Cars as a system of transport are very inefficient in just about every regard. The problem with the alternative locomotion crowd, who tries to find other ways of making their car/truck go, is that they are trying to keep a dinosaur system alive.

Let's start with the road itself. Roads and highways are extremely expensive. A similar sized railroad costs about 1/10 the price of a paved road to build and maintain. Secondly, compare the rolling resistance/load capacity of a typical railroad to asphalt. As a tractor-trailer is loaded to capacity, it's rolling resistance increases dramatically. A couple horses can almost pull a railcar with 50,000lbs on a level grade. To sum up, the rubber tire/asphalt road is an efficiency nightmare.

Now that we've discredited the road, lets look at the vehicle. Even with an alternative engine, the average car is moving almost a ton of hardware along with its typical single occupant. Throw in traffic, which is lots of stop and go and all you've done with your alternative engine is create a different food for your beast to devour.
How did this inefficient transportation come about:
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

The steel wheel on steel rail was created originally so as to save wear and tear on horses. Then came the steam engine. Again, rolling resistance/load capacity were key. The electric trolley was a natural evolution of the horse drawn omnibus. The amount of energy required to move a trolley full of patrons is probably comparable to the energy expended by your car as you drive it an equivalent distance. There are disadvantages to rail, such as steep hills, but these can be cut through.

As we head toward Peak Oil, it would behoove us to throw out the fantasy of maintaining the rubber tire/asphalt roadway system. We already have an alternative that works which we allowed big business to take away from us years ago.

rerere · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 27, 2004 Posts: 448

bentstrider · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject:

Thats why I like diesel trains, or any other train for that matter.
Unless you hit something, you just keep rolling.

Andy · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 16, 2004 Posts: 519

I love the efficiency of trains/rail versus road/asphalt. The only problem is that although the basic components per unit capacity are probably cheaper (ties, steel, ballast), the engineering of rail lines in difficult terrain is more expensive because of the need to minimize gradient and curvature. Hence the necessity of tunnels, viaducts, cuttings, fills etc. In a peak oil scenario, will we have enough energy to build tunnels etc. It is actually criminal that so many past rail lines have been hopelessly abandoned, never again to see the light of day, especially those through routes in mountainous terrain.

Kingcoal · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:41 pm Post subject:

Kingcoal

bentstrider · Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:36 pm Post subject:

BNSF rolling thunder will put every other transport to the pasture.
I'd rather walk to the train station than get my ass plowed over on the chokeways.