Submitted by nowaysingh t3_ysa2bf in Futurology
Surur t1_ivzlhl4 wrote
Reply to comment by jingleghost in What will be future like next 5 years, 10 or 15 years. by nowaysingh
> Less people will be driving.
You know as Africa becomes richer and doubles in population more people will be driving, right?
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw1sa74 wrote
I doubt Africa and other developing regions will go through that. Rich countries are trying to get rid of cars. It makes no sense for the poorer ones to adopt outdated and inefficient technology.
Just like how India and Africa are making huge investments into renewables from the get go, they’ll probably skip the car inferno rich countries have and jump straight to public transport.
Surur t1_iw249iu wrote
> It makes no sense for the poorer ones to adopt outdated and inefficient technology.
Yes, they will jump straight to EVs lol.
> India and Africa are making huge investments into renewables from the get go, they’ll probably skip the car inferno rich countries have and jump straight to public transport.
Look at India lol. Look at China lol.
> jump straight to public transport.
Hahahahahaha hahahaha
Lol. Imagine thinking public transport is progress.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw271kl wrote
It is, though. I’d recommend you check things like r/fuckcars or literally any urban planning youtube channel, journal, news article, etc. nowadays.
There’s a war on cars in europe (and even in the US) and I’m here for it. We need to take back our streets, and amazing and convenient public transport is achievable.
The world bulldozed the cities to find space for cars a few decades ago. Finally, we’re going back. Look at Paris or Barcelona, for instance. Huge changes are happening every day. Lanes disappearing, gugantic investments in public transport, creation of parks, reduction of parking spots, car free zones in the centre of cities, etc.
—— The figures you showed for china and India don’t take into account population growth, the percentage of commuters in different types of transportation, the investments in alternative forma of transportation nor what those countries consider a car (in Asia, small vehicles are a lot of times considered as cars)
Test19s t1_iwa07cp wrote
The US and Europe are largely overcorrecting from excessive car use. Very few multi-city countries are anywhere near Singapore.
Surur t1_iw2b0l0 wrote
The carfucky people are jokes. Do you even know what transport is like in much of Africa - its private, not public, busses and shared taxis. When people can use their own transport they prefer it, and its much safer.
How exactly do you expect this PT revolution to evolve lol.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2bn8k wrote
With investment in public infrastructure. They wouldn’t be the first countries to do it, nor the last.
Look at singapore, for example. From no infrastructure and poor to a public transport hub.
Of course people feel unsafe in dirty crowded old falling apart buses. The whole point is that they don’t have to be dirty crowded old and falling apart with the right investment in the sector.
Road construction and maintenance is much more expensive than public transport infrastructure, so don’t tell me they don’t have the money to pour into these projects.
Surur t1_iw2c4g6 wrote
> Road construction and maintenance is much more expensive than public transport infrastructure, so don’t tell me they don’t have the money to pour into these projects.
This is 100% wrong and I have no idea where you got this idea.
Train tracks are about 10-100x as costly as roads per mile, and running PT is much more expensive than maintaining roads.
For exactly this reason you will not see massive investment in PT.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2d7cx wrote
Those numbers are completely incorrect lol. And especially so when taking into account the negative externalities that road construction, maintenance and individual transport creates and also the opportunity cost of not having denser living spaces (which increases tax revenues).
Surur t1_iw2g3b6 wrote
> And especially so when taking into account the negative externalities that road construction, maintenance and individual transport creates and also the opportunity cost of not having denser living spaces (which increases tax revenues).
Ignoring whether these things are real or not, do you actually think anyone will care?
> Those numbers are completely incorrect lol.
You swallowed too much propaganda.
> In the United States, most recent and in-progress light-rail lines cost more than $100 million per mile. Two light-rail extensions in Minneapolis, the Blue Line Extension and the Southwest LRT, cost $120 million and $130 million per mile, respectively. Dallas’ Orange Line light rail, 14 miles long, cost somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. Portland’s Orange Line cost about $200 million per mile. Houston’s Green and Purple Lines together cost $1.3 billion for about 10 miles of light rail.
For roads:
> New Construction 2 Lane Undivided Urban Arterial with 4' Bike Lanes: U01 $4,285,161.73
https://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/estimates/documents/costpermilemodelsreports
That's $4 million vs $100 million btw.
People have been lying to you, and you have swallowed it up.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw2if6u wrote
Dude, did you even read the title of the article you posted? “Why It's So Expensive to Build Urban Rail in the U.S.”
You’re comparing the inflated US figures to those of the industry. The US is simply the most car centric place in the entire free world. It’s not a good representative of the cost of roads vs public transport. The article itself says it.
Also, I’m not American. So, if I’d accept to play that unfair game, I have no reason to. It doesn’t affect me at all.
Also, of course cities and countries will consider the negative externalities and the effect on tax revenues… what do you think their job is? Urban planners, economists, politicians, etc. just sit around approving random projects all day? It’s literally what a bunch of people are hired to do. Industrial economists in particular: that’s their entire job (analysing externalities).
Believe it or not, but companies and governments take years to approve projects for a reason (sometimes inefficiencies, yes, but also because there’s a bunch of stuff to consider).
Surur t1_iw2iu5u wrote
> Also, I’m not American.
So you think this is a uniquely US problem? In UK they are about to cancel HS2 high speed rail because cost spiralled to more than £100 billion
Tell me which country you are in, and I will look up your local figures.
> Also, of course cities and countries will consider the negative externalities and the effect on tax revenues… what do you think their job is?
No, they look at their budget, and what they have to spend now lol. You live in a fantasy world, especially when it comes to developing economies.
So you are in Portugal:
> In February 2009, the government of Portugal announced plans to build a high-speed rail line from Lisbon to Madrid; this plan was cancelled in March 2012 amidst a bailout programme of financial assistance to the Portuguese Republic.[1] The project was valued at €7.8 billion and the government had claimed it would create 100,000 jobs.[2] The line would link to Spain's Southwest Corridor.
Lol
In Portugal the government spends more than 200,000 Euro per mile on rail track per year.
In Portugal the government spends around 70,000 Euro per km on roads.
> In some other countries (i.e. Austria, Croatia, The Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland and Japan) the infrastructure costs are significantly above € 40,000 per kilometre road network. In Portugal and Croatia, the large-scale investment programmes in the 1990s and the first decade of this century largely explains the high cost levels
DyingShell t1_iwbd43z wrote
"In 2021, highspeed rail in China transported over 1.9 billion passengers", yeah public transport, who needs that!
Surur t1_iwbfavt wrote
In 2021, China's public road passenger turnover has reached about 363 billion passenger kilometers
61% of commercial traffic is via road in 2021.
Here is real progress lol.
Able-Emotion4416 t1_iwbhtty wrote
It happened again and again in the past. For example for tobacco, leaded gasoline, banned pesticides (banned in the Western world), banned dirty fuel, etc. Whenever the West moves on into new tech, regulations, lifestyle, the old stuff gets dumped into African countries.
For two main reasons:
-
African legislator don't immediately "copy-past" Western laws. And by the time they realize their mistake, it's usually too late, as powerful lobbies and private interests resist any change (e.g. African countries have unsuccessfully tried several times to ban 2nd hand clothing. But the economics are just too powerful, and they get bullied into giving up any bans)
-
prices. As soon as the Western world bans traditional cars (i.e. internal combustion vehicles), their prices will collapse. And Africans will buy them.
And most interestingly, if the same patterns continue, Western companies will have branches in African countries making internal combustion cars for the African markets. (just like DDT is still being made and sold in Africa, even though it has been banned in the Western world since the 1970s already... and by Western branches or Western owned companies)
Capitalism is super weird. It has no ethics, nor a humane/STEM logic, only greed...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments