Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smeagolsfree

Fuel Prices & More Urban Projects

8 posts in this topic

With fuel going higher and higher, will more urban projects start in order to be closer to jobs and public transportation, or will it cause a recession? If there is a recession, there could be a bust in all the urban projects planned for Nashville and other cities. I am concerned there will be a bust in the housing industry in general across the country. Maybe there will just be regional housing market collapse such as California, Florida, or other markets that are overpriced.

Do you think the State & Federal Gov. should give tax breaks for more urban constructionand using mass transit in an effort to reduce dependency on oil? What about a huge tax on vehicles such as SUV's in an order to reduce dependency on oil. I relaize there is more like two or maybe three topics here, but they are closely related and can have a huge impact on what is happening in our larger cities, especially in the south.

I really don't what will or could happen, but a lot of people here will have a lot more insight than I do.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


With fuel going higher and higher, will more urban projects start in order to be closer to jobs and public transportation....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really see it ever happening. We just don't have the society to support close urban living anymore. Even in a vertical gated community like the Signature Tower people will still have to go on the street and mix with the people who no longer respect the law. I think the idea of building masses of residential buildings downtown is to flood the cities with upper and upper-middle class people

Has it ever been proven that public transportation is more energy efficient than personal transportation? Some trains run on electricity produced by burning coal. Some trains run on diesel fuel, a petroleum product. As ridership increases so does the efficiency of the conveyance, I know. But, has any public transportation system actually equaled the efficiency of the automobile.

I would rather see a government and industry sponsored Manhattan Project style program dedicated to developing hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Shoot, I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for moving the people back into the cities and killing sprawl. There's an undeniable energy that city-living creates. If I could walk to everything I needed I would - which today I guess means moving into a city like Boston or New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, a train is more efficient than a car. a car can hold 4 people. a train... 100?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see it ever happening.  We just don't have the society to support close urban living anymore.  Even in a vertical gated community like the Signature Tower people will still have to go on the street and mix with the people who no longer respect the law.  I think the idea of building masses of residential buildings downtown is to flood the cities with upper and upper-middle class people

Has it ever been proven that public transportation is more energy efficient than personal transportation?  Some trains run on electricity produced by burning coal.  Some trains run on diesel fuel, a petroleum product.  As ridership increases so does the efficiency of the conveyance, I know.  But, has any public transportation system actually equaled the efficiency of the automobile.

I would rather see a government and industry sponsored Manhattan Project style program dedicated to developing hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Shoot, I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to offend you,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't worry. The things I say are based on the majorty of my advanced years spent in large cities - New Haven, New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Well run large cities is oxymoronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, a train is more efficient than a car. a car can hold 4 people. a train... 100?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was looking for statistical information.

Volume doesn't always equal effciency. Does it take less fuel to move 100 people on a train than it does to move 4 people in a car for the same distance at the same time of day?

Even if it does should anyone be forced, by any influence besides market control, to take public transportation?

I also wonder what share of oil is used for private transportation and how the remaining share is divided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for moving the people back into the cities and killing sprawl.

I guess you mean suburban sprawl. How would you propose to do this?

There's an undeniable energy that city-living creates.
Yeah, sort of like an obnoxious kid screaming in your ear while you are trying to talk on the phone.

If I could walk to everything I needed I would

Would you be willing to pay more for the ability to walk? You would. Rents, storage and distribution expenses are all higher in cities. I guess you wouldn't mind taxis in the cities so people can get their 44" LCD TVs home from the corner electronics store.

Cities are not our salvation. Technology is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.