Elon Musk's grand transportation vision

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

So water lines that serve private homes is a no no? Toll roads for private cars is a no no? What kind of logic is this?

The headline "Elon Musk’s tunnels could fix congestion. But not in the way you’d expect" is so predictable the conclusion of the article was going to be use it for rail.

As a society we cannot afford to keep buying our own personal products (like cars) and overconsume new products if we truly want to leave a planet that's somewhat livable for future generations. If you don't agree with me that’s your right, but I'd like to hear your suggestions instead of your freakouts about me being pro-transit.

P-S: Water lines serving private homes are basically branches of a collective infrastructure.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

As a society we cannot afford to keep buying our own personal products (like cars) and overconsume new products if we truly want to leave a planet that's somewhat livable for future generations. If you don't agree with me that’s your right, but I'd like to hear your suggestions instead of your freakouts about me being pro-transit.

P-S: Water lines serving private homes are basically branches of a collective infrastructure.

I am not freaking out about you supporting mass transit-- I support mass transit too. I have given many suggestions here so feel free to look at my posting history. I also don't think this has to be a zero sum equation in regards to how we will leave the planet for future generations.

Roads are collective infrastructure too. They serve private cars, buses, freight transport, active transport, etc.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I am not freaking out about you supporting mass transit-- I support mass transit too. I have given many suggestions here so feel free to look at my posting history. I also don't think this has to be a zero sum equation in regards to how we will leave the planet for future generations.

Roads are collective infrastructure too. They serve private cars, buses, freight transport, active transport, etc.

Yes, I have nothing against roads, as they're essential to any city. Just against the private cars who use them twice daily for free in so many places, and car culture as a whole.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Yes, I have nothing against roads, as they're essential to any city. Just against the private cars who use them twice daily for free in so many places, and car culture as a whole.

I didn't realize cars were free. Last I check they costs tens of thousands of dollars of which you have to pay several thousand in taxes on. Last I checked they use fuel which costs money and that is also taxed. Drivers licenses aren't free. Car drivers also pay other taxes like income, property, sales, etc. just like everyone else. Given the fact that car drivers subsidize a lot of transit infrastructure on top of roads along with having the highest per user capital cost of any form of transit, I fail to see how cars are in way free or using roads for free.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I didn't realize cars were free. Last I check they costs tens of thousands of dollars of which you have to pay several thousand in taxes on. Last I checked they use fuel which costs money and that is also taxed. Drivers licenses aren't free. Car drivers also pay other taxes like income, property, sales, etc. just like everyone else. Given the fact that car drivers subsidize a lot of transit infrastructure on top of roads along with having the highest per user capital cost of any form of transit, I fail to see how cars are in way free or using roads for free.

I didn't say cars were free, I said that cars used highways for free.

Transit users also pay for the roads that car drivers use, via their taxes. But transit users need to pay for their fares as well, even though they use a more sustainable mode of transportation, also one that has much less negative impact on society.

Transit users also pay (indirectly) for the very externalities that car culture brings, even though they mostly don't contribute to that. A lot transit users have a car they don't use for commuting, which means they also pay their driver's license.

Something is clearly out of balance here. I thought someone who "supports mass-transit" would see that very clearly.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I didn't say cars were free, I said that cars used highways for free.

Transit users also pay for the roads that car drivers use, via their taxes. But transit users need to pay for their fares as well, even though they use a more sustainable mode of transportation, also one that has much less negative impact on society.

Transit users also pay (indirectly) for the very externalities that car culture brings, even though they mostly don't contribute to that. A lot transit users have a car they don't use for commuting, which means they also pay their driver's license.

Something is clearly out of balance here. I thought someone who "supports mass-transit" would see that very clearly.

Why are you only painting one side of the picture? Car users pay for mass transit too.

Cars do pay for freeways. But since you want to make statements like your last one I will say it makes sense someone who is just anti-car would think that way and ignore all the user fees that car drivers pay and how many instances there are of tolls funding mass transit.

[hallelujah]

Thread title should be changed. The man has no vision, certainly not a "grand" one.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by hallelujah

Thread title should be changed. The man has no vision, certainly not a "grand" one.

Yet the companies he is affiliated with like Tesla started the electric car revolution, introduced the first self driving cars, is getting discussions for the next generation of mass transit underway across the world... I can go on and on. I am not a Musk fanboy by any means but to outright dismiss him speaks more about you than it does him.

[hallelujah]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Yet the companies he is affiliated with like Tesla started the electric car revolution, introduced the first self driving cars, is getting discussions for the next generation of mass transit underway across the world... I can go on and on. I am not a Musk fanboy by any means but to outright dismiss him speaks more about you than it does him.

That I'm informed? I agree!

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by hallelujah

That I'm informed? I agree!

You certainly have a right to your opinions. I have been very critical of Musk and even argued in the past he has been to reliant on government assistance to sell his products which I am not the biggest fan of.

I think a lot of his plans like a massive underground network of tunnels for CARS(buses, and even trucks too I just can't stand when people suggest using it for rail as it defeats the whole purpose behind his proposal) and a global hyperloop network. But it makes for good discussion. I just don't like the timelines put forth and the lack of detail explaining a huge part of it will be a shift in politics and reform on the bureaucracy level.

But, IMHO, to sit there and bash Musk is just comical. The man has done a lot of good.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Why are you only painting one side of the picture? Car users pay for mass transit too.

Cars do pay for freeways. But since you want to make statements like your last one I will say it makes sense someone who is just anti-car would think that way and ignore all the user fees that car drivers pay and how many instances there are of tolls funding mass transit.

I am not anti-car, I am against car culture/automobile dependency.

Car users don't pay for freeways in most places (not where I live anyway). And most people that do use their cars for commuting rarely take public transit (so they dont pay for it), however the contrary is not true. It's funny that you chose to ignore the part of my argument where I mention all the negative effects of cars on our society.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I am not anti-car, I am against car culture/automobile dependency.

Okay and I not anti-rail, I am against rail culture/rail dependency. See how that works?

I want a more balanced transportation network and yes that still includes freeways which I believe and support will always make of the largest share of commuting modes-- the automobile. Just because I support that doesn't make me anti-rail and that is the same thing as me accusing you of being anti-car because you support rail. You are holding me to a double standard.

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Car users don't pay for freeways in most places (not where I live anyway). And most people that do use their cars for commuting rarely take public transit (so they dont pay for it), however the contrary is not true. It's funny that you chose to ignore the part of my argument where I mention all the negative effects of cars on our society.

I don't know where you live, but in the United States, infrastructure is paid for with taxes for the most part. PPP's are becoming more prevalent as well. Given that car drivers make up for the majority of commuters, please explain to me who pays for freeways?

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Okay and I not anti-rail, I am against rail culture/rail dependency. See how that works?

I want a more balanced transportation network and yes that still includes freeways which I believe and support will always make of the largest share of commuting modes-- the automobile. Just because I support that doesn't make me anti-rail and that is the same thing as me accusing you of being anti-car because you support rail. You are holding me to a double standard.


I don't know where you live, but in the United States, infrastructure is paid for with taxes for the most part. PPP's are becoming more prevalent as well. Given that car drivers make up for the majority of commuters, please explain to me who pays for freeways?

I'm from Canada.

You want a more balanced transportation network? In the US and Canada, the system is already completely unbalanced towards the automobile, in terms of investment and mode share.

You probably believe freeways will always make the largest share of commuting modes because it's the only true way of getting around in the country where you grew up. But countries where the majority of people actually like to think outside the box and are concerned about socio-environmental issues know this isn't the way it should work, and they're acting on it.

Sure, there will always be people commuting by car and that's fine. Eventually, some car externalities will go away (such as CO2 emissions and air pollution) but that will take a lot of time. In the meantime, we cannot keep encouraging a culture which has contributed so much to global warming and the destruction of natural habitats.

I'm going to stop the argument here because you choose to answer to certain points and leave some others unanswered on purpose (such as the externalities of car culture). Plus, there are things you simply don't (or won't) understand (such as the financing inequality between road and transit infrastructure) so the discussion is going around in circles. I won't waste my time.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I'm from Canada.

You want a more balanced transportation network? In the US and Canada, the system is already completely unbalanced towards the automobile, in terms of investment and mode share.

You probably believe freeways will always make the largest share of commuting modes because it's the only true way of getting around in the country where you grew up. But countries where the majority of people actually like to think outside the box and are concerned about socio-environmental issues know this isn't the way it should work, and they're acting on it.

Sure, there will always be people commuting by car and that's fine. Eventually, some car externalities will go away (such as CO2 emissions and air pollution) but that will take a lot of time. In the meantime, we cannot keep encouraging a culture which has contributed so much to global warming and the destruction of natural habitats.

I'm going to stop the argument here because you choose to answer to certain points and leave some others unanswered on purpose (such as the externalities of car culture). Plus, there are things you simply don't (or won't) understand (such as the financing inequality between road and transit infrastructure) so the discussion is going around in circles. I won't waste my time.

I asked a simple question, where do you think the monies for freeways come from if it isn't paid from the largest share of commuters in the U.S.

I haven't dodged a single point you have made. What externalities of car culture do you want me to address? There are many--some good and some bad like everything else in the world. If there is a question you asked and I missed it please let me know and I will answer it.

I never said I wanted to see a perfectly balanced transportation system. I said I wanted it more balanced. That doesn't mean that we should overly prioritize mass transit to the point roads are neglected and yes that includes capacity expansion. Why does this have to be a zero sum equation?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I'm from Canada.

In which case total collected fuel taxes are pretty close to covering public capital and operating expenditures on roads. If you want to focus on those who don't pay their way, look at transit users.

You probably believe freeways will always make the largest share of commuting modes because it's the only true way of getting around in the country where you grew up. But countries where the majority of people actually like to think outside the box and are concerned about socio-environmental issues know this isn't the way it should work, and they're acting on it.

Are they?

Europe's car modal share has barely changed over the last decade, at 83%. No matter how much effort and money you throw at walking, cycling and transit (and how expensive you try to make driving), they will only be able to enable a fraction of the trips that people want to make.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by accord1999

In which case total collected fuel taxes are pretty close to covering public capital and operating expenditures on roads. If you want to focus on those who don't pay their way, look at transit users.

Are they?

Europe's car modal share has barely changed over the last decade, at 83%. No matter how much effort and money you throw at walking, cycling and transit (and how expensive you try to make driving), they will only be able to enable a fraction of the trips that people want to make.

I am talking about cities specifically. It’s much more appropriate to look at mode shares in european cities where specific measures were applied (like congestion taxes or low-emission zones) and transportation systems were developed as an alternative to the car.

Your stats are weighed up by car share in smaller cities or rural areas where the numbers are probably around 90-95%.

Here’s some european cities mode shares for you:

Barcelona: 26% public transport, 35% private transport
Berlin: 26% public transport, 32% private transport
Copenhagen: 30% public transport, 24% private transport
London: 27% public transport, 40% private transport
Madrid: 34% public transport, 29% private transport
Paris: 62% public transport, 32% private transport
Prague: 43% public transport, 33% private transport
Vienna: 36% public transport, 31% private transport

(All data is from https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...y-of-cyclists/ and https://nanopdf.com/download/passeng...rld-cities_pdf)

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I am talking about cities specifically. It’s much more appropriate to look at mode shares in european cities where specific measures were applied (like congestion taxes or low-emission zones) and transportation systems were developed as an alternative to the car.

Does it matter what cities are doing if they have had almost no impact on national modal share? It could just be that policies of city cores have just attracted people who already were using non-car transport while pushing away drivers to take their trips elsewhere and not actually converting drivers.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Does it matter what cities are doing if they have had almost no impact on national modal share? It could just be that policies of city cores have just attracted people who already were using non-car transport while pushing away drivers to take their trips elsewhere and not actually converting drivers.

Since cities have the biggest influence on pollution and the economy, I'd say it matters a lot what they're doing.

If cities are attracting people who are already using non-car transport, how can you explain modal shifts like the one London experienced when it introduced it's policies? Car usage going down 12% in favor of public transport is huge in terms of pure numbers.


https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/st...32290067345409

[canucklehead2]

So I guess the Las Vegas tunnel is more than 50% complete and will be ready by CES 2021. The only thing I noticed is that the system looks to be using steel rails. So basically they are finding a cheaper way to build subway tunnels (albeit narrower ones) which is what I wanted to see them do all along...

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

If cities are attracting people who are already using non-car transport, how can you explain modal shifts like the one London experienced when it introduced it's policies? Car usage going down 12% in favor of public transport is huge in terms of pure numbers.

That is very easy to explain. London de facto priced the poor out of their cars leaving only with those with means to be able to continue to drive. Not only is this ironic as many advocating for public transportation usually do so under the pretense of supporting the poor, but it represents bad policy as it is unsustainable to use it to fund transit and requires makeshift solutions like the Stockholm 'solution' in order to keep it going. Congestion pricing is a horrible practice and it is very sad NYC plans to go that route.

A better example would be Seattle as they have considerably increased their infrastructure building both new freeway lanes and new rail/active transit infrastructure and their modal share has seemingly moved towards people using the latter. SLC has been widening freeways like mad, adding tons of people, building new rail and BRT and they have seen almost no increase of congestion in the metro.