gildone

Spent the first 5 years of my life in East Cleveland--my first few months on Garden Rd, then the rest of that time on Nelaview Rd. We left in 1972. Some white neighbors begged my dad not to sell to a black person but not only did he sell to a black person, he held the note on it, selling it via a land contract. The buyer wanted the house so badly that she waited several months (8 or 9, I think) while my dad looked for a house to move us to. Descendents of that person still own the house today. I have fond memories of our time there. There were several shops on Noble Rd, including a corner store at the end of our street where I sometimes bought candy (well, the last summer/fall we were there anyway). I would go with my mom to the Fisher-Fazio's grocery where the Save-a-Lot is now. That little sliver of East Cleveland is about the only halfway descent area of the city that's left. It was a very nice city in its day. Sad what happened.

I've heard that CSX has taken out a key section of track and a key track connection that would allow CVSR to be extended to Tower City. Seems to me the City needs to be prepared to use eminent domain to acquire the needed property, at least in some areas, to do the extension if CSX decides to be obstinate. I've also heard that the city probably won't have the stones to do that, which is disappointing.

I know. I never said it was. As for net energy, it still matters for renewables. The energy return figures are debatable Others put it at a lot less. Then there is the energy density issue. Fossil fuels are very energy dense and renewables don't match it. There are other considerations too, like the ecologically sensitive high mojave desert in Nevada is likely to be torn up for lithium. Part of Portugal too. A huge part of Bolivia is now. Lithium mining isn't clean. We're already in the middle of the 6th Great Extinction. We nees to lighten our ecological footprint substantially. Turning over the existing car fleet to electric isn't going to do that. You've agreed we need to dive less. As driving is a substantial portion of our energy use, then it appears you agree that ee need to dial down our energy use, thoigh we disagree on degree. Oil's net energy return was 100:1 in the 1930s (It's a well known figure) today it's 17:1 to 30:1 depending upon who you read.

@acd, thanks for this. I'd like to know more about that data Vaclav Smil used, but we are unlikely to get it. I'm still willing to consider his thesis since he spent a career studying energy, and we're just amateurs. One area may be electronics which households have a lot more of today, and which contain a lot of embodied energy. E.g. one laptop requires 40,000 lbs of resource through-put to make. That's a lot of embodied energy. Cell phones would have substantial resource through-put too. Net energy matters because renewables have net energy issues too, and it's net energy that runs society, not gross energy produced. Net energy overall continues to decline. As I said, fusion would change the equation, but fusion has been 30 years away since the 70s.

@Ethan You are trying to contradict my point by using a different metric that doesn't measure what's being discussed. It is possible for household use to go up while per capita use goes down because of other overall changes in energy use in the economy, only some of which I mentioned. Smil's point is that household energy use has gone up since 1964. Smil is a respected energy analyst, so that's the reference we have for the moment until someone can come up with specific per household data over time. @Foraker provided current household use in the US, so we are part way there. I've tried to find historical household use and will look some more, but I am also willing to concede to Smil, because, unlike us he actually has expertise. As for net energy, let me explain. The net energy concept has to do with how much energy we are expending to get usable energy and what's left over for use in the economy after that happens. Net energy, or energy returned on energy invested, in this respect has been declining for decades. Example: In the 1930s oil wells returned 100X the energy it took to get the oil out of the ground. It's now down to 17:1 to 30:1 depending on the source you read. The same thing has happened with natural gas and coal. Right now we are using fossil fuel energy to build up renewable energy, but the ongoing net energy decline combined with coming global oil production declines is going to overtake aggregate energy production, unless we figure out fusion (if that happens, we're in good shape). This is the problem that is not going to go away and why electric cars aren't going to do much for us in the long run.

@EthanPer capita energy use and per household energy use are different metrics. I thought I was pretty clear that the article was talking about per household. Per capita looks at all energy use divided by population. Per household is just that. Use at the household level only. Smil was refererring to households in N. America, well, the US and Canada, really. If you have data specific to US and Canadian households over the past 50 or so years, not per capita, let's discuss. And still, the net energy issue I brought up in my original post is being avoided. I can only conclude that either no one knows what it means or no one wants to talk about it. Suffice it to say, the net energy issue means that we aren't going to be able to indefinitely run things the way we have been, including our car-based transportation system

Apologies for the late reply. Been busy with other things. I got it from this article that resulted from an interview with energy analyst Prof. Vaclav Smil: https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/27/1964-Energy-World/ . I believe he is referring to energy use at the household level. A lot of the per capita energy use decline in North America has come from things like the loss of our industrial base, more energy efficiency in the industrial sector that has remained, more efficient commercial buildings, etc. And yes, I know homes and home HVAC systems are more energy efficient now than back then, but again, I think Smil is arguing that households are using more energy overall: larger homes (avg home size in 1970: 1,500 sq ft, today 2,600 sq ft), more electronics and appliances; bigger, less fuel-efficient SUVs and trucks, more VMTs per household. Regardless, I repeat that everyone in this conversation has been ignoring net energy. As for @Gramarye, let's find more productive ways to converse with each other rather than behavior like accusing me of waxing nostalgic.

Steubenville had joined the Strong Towns movement. They have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/people/Strong-Towns-Steubenville/100094653580323/ They also had a "Cycle the City" event last Saturday: https://www.weirtondailytimes.com/news/local-news/2023/07/steubenvilles-cycle-the-city-to-promote-health-active-transit/

RTA employee lurkers... What's going on here? Twitter post today:

Lithium is actually very abundant. Regardless, the massive amount of mining necessary is problematic. It doesn't matter if there is research into other alternatives. They will require lots of mining and therefore lots of energy to make. The energy return on investment may be a little bit better than with lithium batteries, but it is unlikely to improve significantly. Net energy issues are not going to go away. The reality that is all too often avoided is that the only viable path forward civilization has is learning to get by with less total energy. In the 1960s we got by just fine and without sacrifice using 40% less energy than we do today.

Many of you may know that one of the biggest problems holding up passenger rail expansion from Chicago eastward is all of the freight congestion between Porter, Indiana and Chicago. The Lakeshore and Capitol Ltds have around an extra hour or so of running time in their schedules because of this. The proposed service increases from Chicago-east is The fix that is needed is called the South-of-the-Lake Bypass: constructing about 80-miles of passenger-only tracks between Porter and Chicago. This is a billion-dollar project which is going to take years to complete (although the Trump administration killed a grant application for it, which put it further behind). One interesting item to note is that, as an interim measure, Amtrak is currently in talks with the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (operator of the South Shore Line) to use the South Shore Line until the Bypass can be constructed. I don't know exactly where Amtrak would switch over to the SS Line from NS. The segment in yellow below is the problem area:

Worth noting:

Another reason US infrastructure isn't up to first world standards Was in Italy in March. Grade crossings are very rare there. They are pretty much only on regional lines in rural areas where train speeds are low. And, they make it impossible to drive around the gates. Of course, driver training requirements are much highet all over the EU.

With just 8% of new vehicles costing under $30,000, ‘it’s the least affordable car market in modern history,’ expert says https://www.allpar.com/threads/with-just-8-of-new-vehicles-costing-under-30-000-‘it’s-the-least-affordable-car-market-in-modern-history-’-expert-says.244214/

@mrnycwe can agree to disagree.

^It would be nice if the Biden administration would push for the South-of-the-Lake Bypass between Chicago and Porter, Indiana. The SOTLB is every bit as important as the Gateway Tunnels because there can be absolutely no expansion of passenger rail service from Chicago to the East without it. Michigan can't add more DET-CHI trainsa, Ohio can't do COL-LIM-FTW-CHI or CLE-CHI. Were talking a few dozen trains per day at full build-out of just these three corridors. More if we ever get to European levels of service. (to compare, Amtrak operates about 35 trains per day on the NEC, though I know the Gateway tunnels will serve many local trains from local transit agencies). Regarding my previous post on Rockford-Chicago... @KJPinforms me that Metra and possibly the Union Pacific as well have submitted RFPs to Illinois for operation of Chicago-St. Louis. Amtrak should be getting nervous. About 20 years ago, Amtrak lost all of their commuter contracts, but it appears they haven't learned anything.

Metra chosen as passenger rail service provider from Rockford/Belvidere to Chicago https://www.wrex.com/news/metra-to-spearhead-chicago-train-service-to-rockford-and-belvidere-by-2027/article_afe56eb2-1bac-11ee-8555-63a7e526a51b.html “This is a major step for Metra to journey outside our six-county, Chicago-area home, but it is something we are well-prepared to do,” said Metra CEO and Executive Director Jim Derwinski. “We know how to operate passenger trains – we’ve been doing it for nearly 40 years, through polar vortexes and hot streaks and pandemics and with an on-time performance rate that is the envy of our peers [emphasis added]. And we could not be more excited that we will soon be providing service to Rockford.” Make no mistake, this is a not-so-veiled shot at Amtrak. Amtrak's service meltdowns, using cold weather as an excuse, foolishly furloughing of crews (which contributed to service meltdowns) when Congress asked them not to because Covid relief money was coming (and that money did come) has resulted in deteriorated service for Amtrak's state partners, including Illinois. This route is in Amtrak's ConnectsUS plan (https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/chicago-rockford/), and Amtrak has been hoping to start this route in the 2030s. Metra will be starting this route in four years per the article. That alone doesn't make Amtrak look good. Even the Union Pacific got a veiled dig in: “Union Pacific couldn’t be prouder of the partnerships we’ve forged with Metra and the Illinois Department of Transportation to expand passenger rail service in Illinois,” said Union Pacific Chairman, President and CEO Lance Fritz. “This project underscores the opportunities that exist when the public and private sector work together.” UP is never glowing about Amtrak. It should also be noted that a couple years ago, former Illinois congressman Dan Lipinski called for Metra to take over Union station, so I think there has been dissatisfaction with Amtrak brewing there for some time (https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/transportation/ct-biz-lipinski-metra-amtrak-union-station-service-20191113-ftiy6d2sajdobgtl2tfmiefedm-story.html). Illinois may not be the only state to make this kind of move. In 2019 Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), testified before Congress in 2019 about California's strained relationship with Amtrak and said point blank that she wanted to contract out the San Joaquin Corridor to another operator. She cited a strained working relationship with Amtrak, Amtrak's opaqueness and defensiveness when she asks them to rationalize their costs. By contrast, Herzog Transit Services operates the Altamont Commuter Express trains over a portion of the same corridor as the SJCs, but Amtrak charges 3X per train mile what Herzog does when Herzog has to pay UP a market rate for track access, and Amtrak gets a statutory discount. Herzog also has a very open book (literally--accounting books) relationship with the SJJPA. Already, California is taking away all maintenance functions for their intercity trains from Amtrak. They are completing the construction of a new maintenance center for their intercity train equipment, I believe this year if it hasn't happened already. It is very possible that they will take away operations at some point. I should also add that Indiana stopped funding the Hoosier State not because the state is anti-train, but because they considered Amtrak to be a bad business partner. They got much better service out of the Iowa Pacific during the short time they operated the Hoosier State. IPs mistakes aside, it has been said by people in the know that Amtrak did everything they could to sandbag IPs operation of the train. Bottom line: This move by the state of Illinois is encouraging. I hope it leads other states to do the same thing. Amtrak needs competition.

Not saying it isn't possible, but, the only way to say thay with any certainty is to dig into the specific poll questions and point out where you think it's a problem.

The impossible paradox of car ownership https://www.vox.com/23753949/cars-cost-ownership-economy-repossession New car prices have risen so much that purchasing one is quickly becoming out of reach for many buyers: A new car cost about $48,000 in May 2023, roughly 25 percent more than one cost in May 2020...consumers are increasingly turning to the used car market, driving up those prices, too. Over almost the same time period, the price of an average used car rose about 50 percent.

82% of voters don’t believe highway expansions are the best solution for reducing congestion. https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/06/29/americans-are-ready-to-move-on-from-highway-expansion/ “We’re repeatedly told by leaders on Capitol Hill that requiring states to prioritize maintenance first is just too controversial,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “But this survey shows yet again that there’s no controversy among the people they serve — they’re beyond ready to retire the last generation’s playbook when it comes to improving mobility and getting them where they need to go.” ^I suspect the "controversy" referenced above is coming from highway lobbyists, not the folks back home in their districts.

Another reason electric cars won't save us: road damage. Note: I'm not against electric cars. I just think we need to be realistic about them: Electric cars 'cause TWICE as much road damage as petrol equivalents': Why Britain's pothole crisis could be worsened by the rise of EVs https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12237529/Britains-pothole-crisis-worse-electric-cars.html

Every time NJB drops a video, he nails it. This one is about a 6-week experiment reducing through traffic on a road through the heart of Amsterdam:

@Gramarye said: While this is true, it's also extraordinarily utopian even for Ohio's largest cities. In fact, it's likely utopian even for substantial portions of larger coastal metropolises...this isn't medieval Europe where families would generally stay in the same tiny villages in which they were born Just speaking to a few points you made. I'm not interested in the upthread argument about second jobs, etc. Much of Europe today was built after WWII. e.g. 60% of the Netherlands was built after WWII and they were all in with the car until the early 70s. To go further with the Netherlands example... What The Netherlands accomplished since had nothing to do with utopia. It changed because people got tired of kids dying under the wheels of cars. And, they didn't change overnight, they did it a little at a time over ~50 years. There was opposition. There were naysayers. Local gov't officials sometimes received death threats. Making U.S. cities more liveable by increasing transport options has nothing to do with utopia either. No one is saying every city has to do it, but it's not unreasonable to respond to the woefully underserved market demand that exists. Furthermore, car-centric development in the U.S. is financially stressing cities. Conservatives who decry the size of gov't should be all in for smarter development patterns that will make cities less dependent on state and federal handouts to meet their infrastructure maintenance obligations (which dwarf their pension obligations). As an example, the 62-year old infrastucure in my neighborhood in Berea (streets, sidewalks, water sewer and storm sewer lines) had to be re-built with a grant from outside city coffers (I forget which level(s) of gov't above the city the money came from). Berea is going to be in even more trouble when the infrastructure maintenance bill comes due for the Sandstone Ridge development, built in the mid-00's and for which the city gave 10-yr tax abatements to home buyers for. Bottom line, financial pressure is likely to motivate many cities to do things differently in the coming years. Cities are starting to get it as we are seeing more attempts to change development patterns and transport options. Oh... and in those U.S walkable neighborhoods, most households own a car because the transport options still suck. NYC is perhaps the biggest exception, but if they want to travel outside the metro area, the transport options degrade rapidly.

Superior/Midway cycleway construction to start in 2025. A path of their own: Cleveland bikeway projects would improve safety, accessibility for cyclists https://www.ideastream.org/environment-energy/2023-06-26/a-path-of-their-own-cleveland-bikeway-projects-would-improve-safety-accessibility-for-cyclists “Because we do have all of the construction funding in place for Superior, we're targeting construction starting in 2025..."

Making room for bikes saves cities money and boosts local economies: https://momentummag.com/making-room-for-bicycles-can-save-cities-money-and-boost-local-economies/