scroll_lock's recent activity
-
Comment on Trains.FYI is a real-time map of passenger trains in North America in ~transport
-
Comment on Abundance meets resistance: Are US Democrats finally ready to go all in on building housing? in ~society
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: fairly neutral Opinion: a bit Sarcasm/humor: none I love buses and think urbanists (including myself) need to better advocate for...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information, opinion
- Tone: fairly neutral
- Opinion: a bit
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I love buses and think urbanists (including myself) need to better advocate for them. They're not really in the public consciousness, or only something for "poor people." It's also important for bus infrastructure to be high-quality; enclosed/heated bus stops (at least partially), real-time arrival tracking, better route detouring, etc. Dedicated bus lanes along highways and arterials, as well as intersection signal priority, would also dramatically improve travel times.
Like you said, bus fleets in Silicon Valley and other places can be super attractive. Jarrett Walker from Human Transit has a lot of good materials about bus networks.
I grew up in a small town and never even took a transit bus until I was in my 20s. Unfortunately, I think that's pretty common.
Rail is ultimately the safer, greener, more energy-efficient, and more space-efficient method of transportation, but a good rail network is only as good as its branch lines—which in practice is its bus network.
Rail guideways have conflict points that need to be carefully engineered, or grade separated. Rail is very high-capacity and necessarily isn't cost-effective (from a market perspective) on all routes, although government subsidies could change that. Buses can take grades that rail can't, and so bus routes don't necessarily need as many expensive tunnels and bridges in mountainous areas. More importantly, rail supply chains are fairly slow and producing rolling stock takes a while, so municipalities have to be really serious about it. Bus fleets are very easy to deploy, and bus drivers don't necessarily need as much training as train conductors.
They resent private companies using bus stops maintained by the city. I’m not sure how valid those complaints are, though?
Bus headway is basically a non-issue. They all travel at roughly the same speed. The only issue is that express buses need to pass local buses. That's not a problem along arterials which necessarily have more than 1 travel lane in each direction, and even on local roads, bus zones at bus stops allow express vehicles to pass. Traffic in bus corridors is fundamentally caused by too many cars, not too many buses. There are occasional congestion issues in downtown areas if private companies allow buses to queue (park) on public roads rather than in off-street bus depots. But that's the result of not having... a public bus depot that private buses can use.
I say that private usage of public transit stations is WAY better than the other way around. NYC's publicly-owned Port Authority is successful; my city's privately-owned Greyhound station (which was sold because Greyhound could make a profit that way) stupendously fails residents.
It's possible there are some specific bottlenecks in Silicon Valley (due to cars creating congestion), but this is an unreasonable critique. Highways are publicly funded too... why not "resent the vibes" of private companies driving cars and trucks? Or private airlines flying planes in public airports? You can make an argument about market share profitability—but it's pretty weak considering the externalities it's avoiding. "Vibes" are a bad excuse. People just like to hate on Silicon Valley. The government's whole purpose is to subsidize things. If people are going to hate on anything, it should be things that are fundamentally bad, and public transport is not that.
Possibly, driverless cars could be used to extend these fleets to places where there aren’t enough people to support a bus line?
This is interesting and I am curious to see where driverless tech goes. But I am wary of all taxis. Uber's contribution to traffic is ridiculous; some figures I've seen suggest up to 40% of urban traffic at some times of day is simply due to EMPTY taxis circling blocks, looking for passengers. This is presumably less of an issue in rural areas. The advantage of robo-taxis is that they don't need to park near transit stops, so parking lots near train stations don't need to be nearly as big; the taxis can park under a highway or something. But they necessarily have pretty high mileage.
It would be better if people who work office jobs just didn't live in exurbs.
-
Comment on Abundance meets resistance: Are US Democrats finally ready to go all in on building housing? in ~society
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: a little Sarcasm/humor: none Historically this was how all factory workers got to work. If you're asking about heavy rail...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: a little
- Sarcasm/humor: none
If it’s so easy, why doesn’t anyone do it?
Historically this was how all factory workers got to work.
If you're asking about heavy rail specifically, private railroads don't exist anymore. Corporations don't want to pay for the capital cost of maintaining a completely new set of rolling stock or dealing with regulatory agencies. This service would have to be subsidized and run by government.
But there are still corporate benefits to public transportation, which is why many large companies offer public transit passes to employees that want them. Many transit lines go straight to employment centers.
The only passenger rail I know of that shares tracks with freight rail is Amtrak
Plenty of local railroads share tracks with freight. The NJ Transit River Line is an example; daytime passenger, nighttime freight. SEPTA shares freight lines. Metro-North shares freight lines. Metrolink shares freight lines. I feel like it's harder to name a regional railroad that doesn't share track with freight.
My point was not about the finicky details of shared rights-of-way; I'm not here to talk about track alignment. Hence my follow-up paragraph it doesn't all have to be heavy rail. Rather, a company's willingness to invest into a heavy rail line means that its business is extraordinarily stationary on a long time horizon. This also applies to factory equipment and anything else with capital cost, even office buildings themselves.
Wahab's claim is that TOD fails because many workers have jobs outside downtown urban hubs. The latter observation is true, but her conclusion downplays the fact that employment centers are necessarily hubs in and of themselves. Medium to large employers have enough employees for some sort of public transport to make sense. The stationary infrastructure that already exists around the industries Wahab in part refers to indicates that TOD along consistent branch lines would be feasible.
I will clarify my earlier statement. Passenger heavy rail to factories would not necessarily be easy. But in conjunction with TOD and government support it would still be realistic. If Wahab were serious about housing reform she would be thinking bigger picture than micro-level zoning. While important, everything is interconnected.
-
Comment on Abundance meets resistance: Are US Democrats finally ready to go all in on building housing? in ~society
scroll_lock (edited )Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, personal take Tone: slightly uppity Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Wahab is an example of a politician who utterly lacks visionary capability with regard to...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, personal take
- Tone: slightly uppity
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Wahab is an example of a politician who utterly lacks visionary capability with regard to urban planning. The reason she believes TOD "doesn't work" is because her conceptualization of TOD is sporadic radial transit lines rather than networks of lines; and because she fundamentally cannot imagine a world in which it is atypical to have to drive to work.
This is ironic for someone from New York City. Admittedly she's from Queens, a borough with an infamously "radial" and therefore disconnected transit system.
She even argues that development around transit hubs “doesn’t necessarily work” because many working people have jobs with car commutes
Yes, obviously. The point of TOD is not just about housing, it's also about job centers.
Contrary to popular belief, TOD isn't just for office workers. Industrial workers benefit from it too. Steel mills do not move. Any factory that has a freight railroad can also easily have at least one passenger railroad from a nearby transit hub. These places are huge job centers and just because they're not necessarily urban doesn't mean people can't still get there by transit. Will it take a connection for some workers? Probably.
But it doesn't all have to be heavy rail. There are such things as trams, and buses, and shuttles, all of which can take workers from transit depots to basically anywhere. But housing development ultimately needs to connect to those depots, and that's what Wahab is giving up on. The most basic first step.
Obviously a plumber making household calls needs a car in southern California (currently). That's not the target of short-term TOD. You really have to aim for the 80% of low-hanging-fruit, not the 20% in the higher branches.
all the streamlining efforts haven’t necessarily translated to cost savings
Wahab is actually correct about one thing, which is that "streamlining efforts" don't necessarily work... because they're inadequate.
Local municipalities all over the USA continue to require absolutely behemoth parking structures for new construction. You have no idea how expensive these things are. Legally mandated parking requirements can easily double the cost of a 5-over-1. The worst part? 99.9% of local minimum parking requirements are completely arbitrary and unscientific, justified retroactively through manipulation of statistical data. But they do have a big negative impact, which is making it extremely difficult for developers to build affordable housing. Landlords have to charge high rents if half the building is a parking garage, or else they'll literally never make back their purchase price.
Unfortunately, Wahab believes that minimum parking requirements should be strengthened. She either doesn't understand or doesn't care about induced modal demand.
-
Comment on Climate non-profits anticipate fight with US President Donald Trump over tax status in ~society
scroll_lock (edited )LinkComment box Scope: summary, information, opinion Tone: seething Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none The administration is considering pressuring the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information, opinion
- Tone: seething
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The administration is considering pressuring the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits dealing with climate activism and some other matters.
Because Trump is an unapologetic fascist, the list of targeted organizations will grow until he wields absolute authority over civil life. That's right: you're next.
If you are on the board of a nonprofit organization, I suggest you speak with your treasurer to secure your organization's financial stability. You might have to pay taxes for a while.
This article is pretty optimistic, but the president controls the Treasury Department, and that department contains the Internal Revenue Service.
-
Climate non-profits anticipate fight with US President Donald Trump over tax status
11 votes -
Comment on Norway's capital is known for its green policies and widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Why does the city still struggle with air pollution? in ~enviro
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information, personal take Tone: neutral, but the rant is a rant Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none The electrostatic traps seem interesting but I'd be surprised...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information, personal take
- Tone: neutral, but the rant is a rant
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The electrostatic traps seem interesting but I'd be surprised if they can work at scale. There's a lot of dust out there. The maintenance associated with the necessary number of dust traps seems non-negligible.
I make sure to mention car tire particle pollution in posts related to EVs because as important as EVs are to reducing global emissions (climate change), they don't solve the human health problem.
Rail is the best solution for mass transit, but it isn't the only fix. For short distances, priority pedestrian access is essential. For medium distances, bicycles need to be fully integrated into every road network. While bikes have tires, they're so small and weigh so little that tire shedding is a non-issue. Cars should simply not be allowed to drive on most city streets; modal filters (like bollards) can allow pedestrians and cyclists without allowing larger vehicles. Bollards can be retractable, so access in edge cases is unaffected.
Slightly off-topic rant about emergency vehicles
Preface: I'm not a firefighter, but I have firefighter urbanist friends who have offered valuable perspectives on this stuff. Opinions are my own, and yes firefighters are heroes, but know that fire companies are not deeply considering any negative impact they have on society!
People inclined to drive everywhere in urban areas love to complain (sometimes in good faith, usually in bad faith) "but how will fire trucks get around?" This is a good question and easily answered. The answer is retractable bollards (physical locks or electronic controls), which aren't particularly expensive. Retractable bollards can easily be placed in ways that avoid utility impacts; they have basically no drainage impacts; they're just made of metal; and you only need a few of them to make an entire area car-free. Emergency services need electronically controlled pneumatic ones, which requires some wiring and waterproofing, but the price is still not innately high for a municipal government; they spend way more on unnecessary road resurfacing every year. They can be configured to enter a "retracted" state if the power goes out.
Since all emergency vehicle delays are due to CARS, a fire truck driving down an otherwise pedestrianized street is no problem. In cities with wide enough bike lanes, emergency vehicles have faster response times using them. This is because it's 100x easier for a cyclist to get out of the way than a car.
The other answer is that the belief that firetrucks have to be huge vehicles is fundamentally wrong. American fire trucks in particular are egregiously large; European counterparts happen to be much smaller and do at least as good a job at fighting fires (or better). Fire hydrants are everywhere, and more could be built—to put out a fire you only technically need a water source and hose, which municipalities could easily keep in a small shed near a fire hydrant, like a utility box, which could be more easily activated more quickly by an ultra-fast response team than bringing it on a huge vehicle. If for some reason that's impossible, it's easy to transport a hose on a high-capacity narrow-body electric delivery vehicle, even a beefy e-bike (like those Amazon uses in NYC bike lanes). They resemble large golf carts or motorcycles optimized for storage space. These vehicles are faster than fire trucks, safer than fire trucks (emergency vehicles kill and injure lots of people every year by their absurd weight and socially acceptable but objectively dangerous speeding habits), can store long enough hoses for such use, etc. Firemen themselves can easily take any number of narrow-body vehicles to get their persons to a site. Obviously some equipment needs to live on an inevitably larger and slower truck, like a 7-story ladder... or does it? If you're mainly transporting the ladder and not every other piece of equipment, does the truck really have to be 10ft wide? And why does a pumper have to be 9.5ft wide? (It doesn't!) In general, why does the biggest vehicle in the fleet have to be the priority? Virtually all high-rise buildings, including all modern buildings, are designed such that fires are passively contained and allow for easy evacuation (and therefore have significant leeway for response times)... so if the small vehicles get there first to begin to address the fire, and the giant vehicle gets there later (because it's huge and naturally slow) to speed up the job, that's actually better than just sending the giant and slow vehicle, which would get there late no matter what. Sprinkler systems are mandatory in new construction and frequently retrofitted to old buildings during renovations. Ladders can't reach most floors in high-rises, so firefighters are going INSIDE anyway; while certainly useful, giant ladders are like 5% of the strategy. Firefighters have robust standpipe and interior rescue procedures for this reason. Additionally, most neighborhoods in most cities don't actually need such oversized equipment in the first place. No need for such a big ladder on a 2-story rowhome. In addition to being significantly easier to pilot, getting stuck in way less traffic (and therefore having faster response times), requiring much simpler and safer infrastructure, narrow-body emergency vehicles themselves are much cheaper than the gargantuan trucks. The way it currently works, the engine will ALWAYS get there before the truck company (ladder), but the engine company could get there faster with a smaller fleet of vehicles capable of using narrower streets and better evading traffic! And the ladder truck probably doesn't need to be as wide as most American ladder trucks are. Most of that width is not the ladder object itself, but the truck just being wide to support other equipment that other vehicles should be providing. Even a truck with a really beefy ladder and rotational base could get through more corridors if it were narrower. They have extendible horizontal stabilizers anyway so the vehicle doesn't need to be so wide for that reason. Not all fire stations have ladders because not all calls require ladders. Emergency vehicle access, in general, would be streamlined by better identification of the vehicles and equipment necessary to get the job done rather than going for a SLOW-GIGANTIC-EVERYTHING-VEHICLE that has all the stuff and uses almost none of it. 95% of fire station calls are NOT for fires at all, but they still send out an entire engine or ladder. Terrible and wasteful practice!
But it's a moot point because firetrucks aren't ever blocked by pneumatic bollards to begin with. FIRETRUCKS ARE BLOCKED BY CARS! (So pointlessly huge vehicles with enormous ladders and every fire suppression device known to humankind can STILL get by just fine, and even firemen responding to a call from home, rather than the station, can be granted pneumatic bollard control access from their ideally state-provided vehicles.) All fire trucks should be smaller mostly for safety reasons, and to discourage cities from making oversized lanes (which encourage speeding, increase pedestrian crossing distances unnecessarily, and cause more fatalities). Small vehicles are simply more maneuverable in general, and response times will always be faster if they are small enough to use narrower lanes like bike lanes. But even with current fire truck widths, we don't need to allow cars absolutely everywhere.
If you had a large enough car-free zone, that zone could INCLUDE a fire station with all its huge equipment exclusively or mostly used within that zone. So they don't necessarily have to interact with bollards... at all!
People claim they need to park their car on their block, but that's not true either. Civilized places have underground parking, vehicle access to which can be restricted to arterials or other places where cars are begrudgingly allowed; pedestrian access to such garages can be more common. But frankly most parking structures don't need to exist in cities at all. Without devoting so much space and money to cars, it becomes infinitely easier to install truly robust transit, bike, and pedestrian networks within cities. City limits can be surrounded by a ring of park-and-ride garages connected to internal destinations by transit. For trips that truly require a vehicle, which in such a paradigm are exclusively those both outside the city and outside transit-oriented regional corridors (this will be very few places because a transit-oriented development planning structure should cover nearly all commutes for nearly all urban residents), time spent on a truly good transit network connecting to a garage should be negligible compared to time wasted in city motor vehicle traffic, and a net positive when considering the externalities of car use.
With very few exceptions, local deliveries can be handled on narrow-body electric vehicles that fit in bike lanes. This is just a matter of supply logistics. The only places that need truck access are regional delivery centers along arterial roads; local deliveries simply don't require big trucks, so car access is not necessary either. If necessary, very large deliveries on local streets can be done with heavy machinery overnight or early in the morning, which again is not an issue with retractable bollards.
The law already mandates ADA-accessible transit vehicles and stations, and cities are increasingly installing them. (They could do so faster if they weren't wasting billions on unnecessary urban highway expansions.) Dogs should be allowed on designated areas within all trains; with enough trains it's not an issue for capacity. (FYI you can already take your dog on an enclosed cargo bike.) And so on. There should be literally no NEED for cars within a city. And this isn't a pipe dream. It is totally possible. Been to Paris in the last 5 years? They're getting pretty darn close.
No cars, no car tire pollution, and we fix a bunch of other problems too.
-
Protests are great. The next step is advocacy. Here's how to do it effectively.
Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none There were supposedly 1200 simultaneous protests in the USA on Saturday. The one I went to seemed like it was mostly...
Comment box
- Scope: information
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
There were supposedly 1200 simultaneous protests in the USA on Saturday. The one I went to seemed like it was mostly attended by people who had never protested before. That's great: more people are engaging in the civic process and learning about how to make a difference. I'm writing this as a short guide for people who want to make a difference beyond that.
Understand types of advocates
You can roughly classify advocates into the following stages:
- Unaware: people who simply have no idea what's going on and/or don't care. In general, these people are completely unreachable unless an issue affects their livelihood in an immediate and obvious way.
- Stay-at-home: people who broadly have opinions but have no reason or structure to voice concerns. In general, these people show up only to events if solicited by family/friends.
- Sporadic activists: people who are receptive to calls to action, but do not seek them out proactively. They may be on a few mailing lists, but probably ignore some CTAs. If a cause gets their attention, they'll be very engaged! (but just for a day or two)
- Core demonstrators: people who reliably attend relevant direct action events and proactively spread the word to acquaintances, also going out of their way to look for additional opportunities (surveys, government engagement, etc).
- Initiators: people who take the initiative with event organizing and calls to action. A subset of core demonstrators in leadership roles who steer advocacy campaigns.
Most Americans fall into category 1 or 2. Most people protesting on Saturday were probably between 2 and 3. People on Tildes skew higher. Each successive category is easily 1/10 the size of the previous one.
Event organizers implicitly target certain audiences for their events. In practice, events tend to be primarily composed either of people around 3-4 (smaller events) or 2-3 with some 4s (bigger events).
This is a simplification, but helps to appreciate the different personas in play.
Understand the purpose of different actions
You can broadly categorize direct action protests on a grid with two axes:
- Specificity (ask is more general/multi-faceted/long-term, vs more specific)
- Directionality (event is focused on protestors themselves or internal/allied speakers, vs. focused on external and probably non-allied stakeholders)
Specificity can measure the difference between "we're mad about the government" (yell about everything) and "we're mad about line 67 in HB 1234" (yell about something in particular). Specificity mostly corresponds with actionability. The more specific the thing you're protesting, easier it will be to identify constructive ways to follow up. Successful advocacy uses both of these models at the appropriate times during an extended campaign.
Directionality can measure the difference between "we're mad and we're gonna get riled up!" (cathartic release/venting; perhaps social) and "we're mad and [external stakeholder] is gonna know!" (targeted, though not necessarily aggressive). While both are public, the first is implicitly focused on base engagement and the second is more focused on pressuring an external stakeholder. Successful advocacy requires the appropriate balance of "community-building" (advocates feeling good about themselves) and action (advocates literally forcing a response).
In general, specificity and directionality are correlated: as protests become narrower in scope, they tend to become more directed at specific individuals (usually elected officials or other public figures), with a few exceptions. In theory, all 4 quadrants of this plane can be very successful direct action events!
-
Unspecific and directionally inward: rallies with broad thematic goals publicized to a lot of people, possibly involving marches and chants and inviting famous speakers. In my opinion, the 50501-type protests today fall into this category. I would call these unspecific because while they were broadly "anti-Trump," they were also "anti-Elon," and variously "progressive/pro-rights," which is ultimately a fairly loose collection of themes without an obvious follow-up. I would call these directionally inward because they were fairly non-disruptive marches/rallies and therefore mostly cathartic vent sessions of like-minded people. People want to feel like they are doing something, and this is a useful way for them to get connected with each other and learn about next steps.
-
Specific and directionally inward: similar to the previous category, but with a more clearly articulated scope. I think this comes up most often with legislative issues that are currently novel/fringe but perceived to require significant public support. For example, getting up on a soapbox in a public space and preaching about the need to add or abolish a particular Constitutional amendment. I'd call this specific because, well, it's about exactly 1 amendment --- you could read out the text of your proposed change if you wanted. I'd call this directionally inward because, while the point of this is ultimately to get some legislator to sign a bill into law, your direct action is really distant from that goal; the immediate purpose is more to proclaim your personal opinions and to create an audience saying "Yeah, I agree! What a great idea!" Later iterations of this can involve recruits, and can shift toward being more directionally outward.
-
Specific and directionally outward: actions with narrow, articulated goals; with clear external stakeholders (target being like 1 person or 1 defined group) and ideally time-bound and repeatable on a timeline if needed. For example, a tiny biking nonprofit in my city had a campaign last year in the wake of a biker fatality. The campaign protested a quasi-legal/illegal arrangement that some wealthy/politically powerful churches had made with local government to permit temporary bike lane obstructions during worship. The direct action involved bikers physically stopping worshipers from parking cars in bike lanes, therefore forcing the attention of the congregation and pressuring church administrators to voluntarily relinquish the permits in the bike lanes (the bikers offered an alternative parking proposal), while also garnering media attention. The ultimate goal of the campaign was to force the city to upgrade signage, enforcement, & physical barriers along bike lanes along that corridor, but the goal of the direct action itself was far more granular. I would call this specific because it had an extremely defined ask (to the point of delving into absurd minutiae), focused on churches along a specific corridor (1 at a time), and offered a clear & easy solution for all parties. I would call it directionally outward because it was not about activists letting off steam [about something], it was about making an external institution look selfish for effectively endangering people riding bikes.
-
Unspecific and directionally outward: in practice, this sort of event is not actionable but also not necessarily an effective forum for community-building. For example, a digital protest/rally asking a Senator to "support science." I'd consider this unspecific because "science" is actually many things, and "supporting" science could come in many forms, not all of which might be what you care about. I'd consider it directionally outward because it nominally focuses on an individual external stakeholder. The problem with this kind of event is that presenting an external stakeholder with an unspecific set of demands is not compelling and will result in you being ignored. Additionally, digital protesting has zero of the community-building benefit of real-life interaction (no energy, no vibes) and all of the technical difficulties. A lot of campaigns failed during COVID when organizers attempted to move online and couldn't keep up the momentum. I could see this type of event working for specific internet-savvy demographics or specific edge cases of politicians, but rarely.
This is a spectrum, so the hundreds of different varieties of "direct action" you can think of all fall on a range. There are also some outliers!
For example, protestors may travel to the state capital to lobby legislators about a specific bill as a group. I would call this specific because it's about exactly 1 bill, and the action involves physically talking to the people who have the legal authority to enact that bill. I would call it directionally outward because it's clearly focused on achieving a legislative objective by engaging external stakeholders. However, I would also call it directionally inward because this sort of "travel somewhere with a smallish group of people" event is extremely good for community-building in a volunteer network. And indeed, a good directionally outward project should have an aspect of inwardness insofar as any direct action should be moderately to very fun. So these categories aren't completely exclusive.
Understanding the pipeline
So, really, a lot of campaigns start with unspecific and directionally inward protests: huge rallies with people waving around signs and not doing a whole lot. These are important because they expose people to protesting in ideally digestible and non-scary formats, they can get a ton of media attention (because they're usually about very well-known topics), and they can make people feel included and part of a supportive community --- which is essential.
But any unfocused rally needs to fairly quickly splinter off into specific campaigns. This means a lot of behind-the-scenes planning work needs to be done. One of the most important ways you can help turn energy into real-world change is to pick an issue that's meaningful to you, get involved with an organization whose mission statement covers that issue, and volunteer to do paperwork, planning, or logistics for them! (Sometimes, no such group will exist, so you may wish to create a new one. This is challenging, but very doable, and maybe I will talk about it in a later post.)
For example, according to Wikipedia the 50501 movement calls for: the impeachment of Donald Trump, an investigation into Elon Musk, investigations into all other Trump appointees, reinstatement of DEI at the federal level, protection of LGBTQ rights, protection of (racial?) minority rights, protection of the Constitution, reinstatement of military aid to Ukraine, and the lifting of tariffs on other countries. That's like 20 billion different ideas. Some of them are kind of related to each other. Most of them aren't. Ideological fragmentation in a movement this large is absolutely inevitable and could forestall a lot of change from an organizational insider perspective. More importantly, it's just too complicated to keep track of. No one is an expert in more than 1 or 2 of those subjects. Even just 1 of those issues is extremely broad. For instance, protecting the US Constitution: there are entire nonprofits dedicated just to protecting the 1st amendment! You have to get granular.
(There's no problem with teaming up with allied organizations to co-host a rally about a few topics, and no problem with attending these. But they're only impactful if they're followed by more specific actions.)
Some of the most impactful campaigns are ones which start with general, big-turnout events... and then have a clear pathway toward multiple small actions with defined success criteria. If you go to one unspecific protest for one organization, that's only as useful as the follow-up. Did you join their email list? Have you looked at their website? Did you talk to anyone who volunteers there? You have to do some legwork. Great organizations will have simple and easy onboarding processes, but not every group is so fortunate! As long as you can stay in touch, that's the important part.
Your role as an advocate
You also have to think about how, as an advocate, you want to fit into the puzzle. Is your definition of (personal) success to be a participant in broad-movement rallies, or do you want to take a more involved role? Do you want to lead chants, set up sound equipment, or file for road closure permits from local police departments? Or do you want to lobby a specific politician to adopt a specific piece of legislation? Or run a website or develop a strategic plan on behalf of some organization to do these things?
If you plan to volunteer with an existing organization, some things to keep in mind are:
- You have significantly more influence over local politics than state or federal politics. If you ask me, the #1 place you should be volunteering is in your local community, solving problems on the neighborhood level.
- If you do enough direct action, you will potentially end up in a situation where you risk arrest. If you don't want to do that, don't. But if you do, be aware of what it entails. A night in jail is not fun!
- Volunteering with a specific group is a temporary thing, as long as you want. But for some, it's a lifestyle, not just something to do when fashionable. Advocacy never truly ends. There will always be more battles to fight.
- Most direct action campaigns fail. Most lobbying campaigns fail. Most plans fail and need major revisions. Most things fail, and most people fail a lot. Sometimes, you will work very hard on a project/event, and do a great job, and a stakeholder will derail it anyway.
- All organizations are composed of people doing their best. When people are working on projects they're passionate about, emotions can run high. Take a deep breath! You're all on the same team.
- There's an enormous cultural difference between grassroots, all-volunteer nonprofit organizations and large-scale NGOs. Small nonprofits can feel exciting to work with because they're so flexible and open to new ideas. The larger the organization, the more bureaucratic volunteering is likely to be, which may be demoralizing. However, they'll probably have more funding, and they'll probably be managed in a less chaotic way.
- In general, you will only have strategic volunteering opportunities in grassroots organizations. But if you prefer to be assigned things to do or say, pretty much any org will have something for you to help out with.
- Joining the Board of Directors of a nonprofit is a great way to make an amazing long-term impact. However, being on a board comes with a fiduciary duty and various other legal considerations.
- Volunteer burnout is real. It's easy to become tired and jaded. Many people who volunteer for nonprofits in administrative roles avoid direct action for this reason (and vice versa).
- You can't individually solve every problem with an organization, you can't manage every other volunteer, and you can't work on every project. It's just not possible, and even if it were, it would be bad practice.
- Many large corporations offer matching donations for employee charitable contributions. If you want to make a difference, but can't see yourself volunteering on a regular basis, making a qualified donation and having your company match it would be impactful for that group.
It's getting late so I need to call it, but I hope that was helpful to someone.
26 votes -
Comment on These nearly silent wind turbines have owl-inspired ‘feathers’ in ~enviro
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information, speculation Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none They’re not particularly loud from a distance—perhaps 45 dB from 300m. They can be...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information, speculation
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
They’re not particularly loud from a distance—perhaps 45 dB from 300m. They can be louder up close. Sometimes, the bigger problem I might be infrasound: vibrations that aren’t heard but are felt, and vibrations can cause louder and more irritating sounds. Imagine a piece of metal in your window rattling as a car goes by; you might not hear the car much, but you could hear the metal.
Anyway, it is usually still pretty minor for humans. That doesn’t stop people from being fussy, especially if turbines are within earshot of homes. It’s mostly an excuse for anti-environmental or generic NIMBY blockage. Technology like this disarms that NIMBY narrative.
The sound of a car is unusually loud for most animal habitats. In general the only environmental thing to make continuous noise in any natural habitat is running water, which has obvious benefits for all animals. Animals make noises too but that communicates something specific and contributes to an ecosystem (even if it’s a threatening sound). The sound of a wind turbine doesn’t really help an ecosystem? From an ecological perspective, it’s probably best for human infrastructure to be dead-silent if possible.
-
Comment on These nearly silent wind turbines have owl-inspired ‘feathers’ in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: information, summary, brief opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: a little Sarcasm/humor: none NIMBYs often complain that wind turbines are loud as an excuse not to build them. Okay....Comment box
- Scope: information, summary, brief opinion
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: a little
- Sarcasm/humor: none
NIMBYs often complain that wind turbines are loud as an excuse not to build them. Okay. Here is a possible solution:
Noise from wind turbines limits where they can be built. But a design that mimics the shape of owl feathers can make wind farms quieter and help renewable energy grow faster.
Like airplane wings, wind turbine blades are shaped so that air flows faster on one side and slower on the other, creating lift. At the trailing edge of the blade, where the air mixes, there’s noisy turbulence. To help, blades are designed with a serrated edge that helps break up the airflow. But Church, who has also developed other nature-inspired designs for renewable energy, realized that it was possible to go farther.
Owls use a variety of strategies for silence, but Biome’s design is inspired by the shape of the fringe on the trailing edge of some owl feathers. The FeatherEdge’s shape uses the same principles of physics to cut noise. The engineers customize the design for each specific wind turbine, applying the flexible attachments at key locations to control how the air mixes.
The design works. The standard serrations on wind turbine blades cut noise by 1.5 to 2 decibels; in early tests, FeatherEdge reduced noise by an additional 3.4 decibels. (It’s possible that the latest installation, on massive turbines, may show even greater reductions when the results are in.)
A noise reduction of 3.4 + 2 decibels, or even just the reduction of 3.4 decibels to improve turbines that already have serrated designs, is meaningful and probably worthwhile. More so if the large tests mentioned in the article (data TBD) have good results. I'm not sure that is a night-and-day difference, but the article is optimistic:
With the new design in place, it could be possible for projects near communities to run effectively at night, adding more power to the grid. Because the wind turbines would be so much quieter, it also could be possible to put 30% to 50% more turbines on the same plot of land, he says.
Noise pollution is one of my pet peeves. There is not a great reason that the places we live and work need to be particularly loud, and it is true that loud noise negatively affects most wild animals. If these designs can be implemented cost-effectively, without reducing wind turbine performance (maybe even improving it), I'd say it's worthwhile.
-
These nearly silent wind turbines have owl-inspired ‘feathers’
19 votes -
Comment on California high-speed rail project: Here’s where Central Valley construction stands in ~transport
scroll_lock (edited )LinkComment box Scope: information, speculation Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none CAHSR Authority technically has enough money on-hand or in the pipeline to remain funded through the...Comment box
- Scope: information, speculation
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
CAHSR Authority technically has enough money on-hand or in the pipeline to remain funded through the incoming administration, but not much beyond that. In any case, there are some grant application deadlines coming up in the next couple of years. If the federal government pans CAHSR (which is likely), it will be left to the state of California to cover the remaining funding gap for the Central Valley segment, which is in the low billions. It can be done -- we spend far more on highways every year -- it just has to be prioritized.
See the CAHSR 2024 Business Plan, page 55. It could be as much as $6.4 billion needed (which would be possible but hard, likely resulting in delays as the state would spread that out over a few years). Any delays mean costs continue to escalate. It is also possible that even a hostile federal government does fund CAHSR a little, just not a lot.
This isn't counting the portions connecting to San Francisco or Los Angeles, which are environmentally approved but not constructed. Some work has been done between SF and San Jose already to support electrification, and there is track from San Jose to Gilroy but it's not electrified. There is no infrastructure done at all between Gilroy and Merced; and none between Bakersfield and Los Angeles or Anaheim. Good luck San Diego/Sacramento, you will have your railroad in 2060.
Lucid Stew covers some nitty-gritty news related to CAHSR, including budget outlays.
This is such a large and important project that I doubt it will be completely canceled. It takes time to build large linear infrastructure, like the interstates, many of which functionally took decades to finish. If nothing else, once the Central Valley gets its trains running, the rest of the state will realize exactly what they're missing and will probably prioritize future funding. Any success of Brightline West will also help CAHSR, at least the extension of infrastructure if not the organization's reputation.
-
Comment on US finalizes rule to remove medical bills from credit reports in ~health
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: information, speculation Tone: neutral, moralizing a bit Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That is what the CFPB implies in their statement, although it seems like it could apply...Comment box
- Scope: information, speculation
- Tone: neutral, moralizing a bit
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
That is what the CFPB implies in their statement, although it seems like it could apply to any kind of medical device. Other examples might be wheelchairs, vision or hearing aids, canes, oxygen concentrators, CPAP machines, dialysis machines, etc.... gross and inhumane concept to hold such things as collateral.
Not clear to me how often this actually happened. I'm guessing not so often because I imagine states specifically banned this practice (it's morally reprehensible), but there were probably some uncovered jurisdictions, like states that hadn't thought about it and most likely the offshore territories and maybe DC. The CFPB's rule is a federal blanket requirement, so it might be partially redundant, but that's fine.
Medical equipment repossession has happened before, some veterans have had prosthetic limbs repossessed. And hospital assets have been repossessed because they didn't pay a debt, but I'm not sure if that's technically covered by this rule.
Whether or not it was common, it definitely shouldn't have been possible, and it's good that it will be illegal in 60 days. The unfortunate side effect might be a slight increase in costs for insuring these things, or a decrease in coverage (insurers are already trying to claim prosthetics are "unnecessary" in claims). The market always reacts to regulation. At the end of the day, a better solution would socialize healthcare insurance entirely.
In my opinion the main benefit of this rule is getting debt collectors off the backs of people who HAVE paid their debts, but whose insurers are too incompetent to keep their records accurate. Due to the great incompetence of most corporations, this has unfortunately happened to a lot of people.
-
Comment on Japanese railway operator testing perovskite solar panels on noise barriers in ~enviro
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral, excited Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none Modern solar panels are becoming increasingly cheap, lightweight, and easy to deploy. They...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information
- Tone: neutral, excited
- Opinion: not really
- Sarcasm/humor: none
Modern solar panels are becoming increasingly cheap, lightweight, and easy to deploy. They are more efficient than ever, they use fewer physical materials than ever, and they can even be deployed in a variety of geometries: horizontal, vertical, double-sided vertical, curved, etc. Much of this is thanks to perovskite materials in solar cells.
This article describes a new application of solar panels in linear and otherwise mostly non-productive environments, in this case railway sound barriers. This could allow for a meaningful amount of solar generation, although it requires that the panels be able to withstand the vibrations and wind associated with ultra-fast trains whizzing by.
Central Japan Railway, which operates in Japan's Chubu region, has announced plans to test flexible perovskite solar panels on noise barriers.
The first pilot projects will be deployed along the Tokaido Shinkansen line, an area with high solar radiation.
The company said it is using thin, lightweight, flexible film-type perovskite solar cells, which are reportedly more resistant to wind pressure and vibrations from passing trains. This design avoids turning the soundproof wall into a heavy, load-bearing structure.
In late December 2024, Sekisui Chemical said it would invest JPY 90 billion ($570.64 million) in a perovskite solar production line with an initial capacity of 100 MW, set to begin operations in 2027. It also plans to commercialize its flexible perovskite solar panel technology, produced at its existing facilities, in 2025.
This is one of the fastest train in world, which means lots of vibrations. I hope the test succeeds! Either way, I imagine this technology could be applied to all sorts of linear infrastructure, including sound barriers on car highways.
-
Japanese railway operator testing perovskite solar panels on noise barriers
13 votes -
Comment on US finalizes rule to remove medical bills from credit reports in ~health
scroll_lock LinkComment box Scope: summary, information mainly Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent-ish agency whose mission is to...Comment box
- Scope: summary, information mainly
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent-ish agency whose mission is to protect consumer rights and privacy in finance according to the will of Congress.
Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a rule that will remove an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of about 15 million Americans. The CFPB’s action will ban the inclusion of medical bills on credit reports used by lenders and prohibit lenders from using medical information in their lending decisions. The rule will increase privacy protections and prevent debt collectors from using the credit reporting system to coerce people to pay bills they don’t owe. The CFPB has found that medical debts provide little predictive value to lenders about borrowers’ ability to repay other debts, and consumers frequently report receiving inaccurate bills or being asked to pay bills that should have been covered by insurance or financial assistance programs.
The final rule:
- Prohibits lenders from considering medical information: The rule ends the special regulatory carveout that previously allowed creditors to use certain medical information in making lending decisions. This means lenders will also be barred from using information about medical devices, such as prosthetic limbs, that could be used to require that the devices serve as collateral for a loan for the purposes of repossession.
- Bans medical bills on credit reports: The rule bans consumer reporting agencies from including medical debt information on credit reports and credit scores sent to lenders. This will help end the practice of using the credit reporting system to coerce payment of bills regardless of their accuracy. Lenders will continue to be able to consider medical information to verify medical-based forbearances, verify medical expenses that a consumer needs a loan to pay, consider certain benefits as income when underwriting, and other legitimate uses.
This seems like a valuable rule that will meaningfully improve people's quality of life. The rule doesn't solve the problem of expensive healthcare in this country, but it may help ensure that wracking up medical debt doesn't derail other parts of people's lives.
The CFPB is part of the Federal Reserve, which is independent from the president and Congress. I learned today that it was originally proposed by Elizabeth Warren in 2007 and created by the Dodd–Frank Act in 2010. Apparently the president can now remove the CFPB director for any reason (according to the Supreme Court as of 2020), and apparently the agency gets a lot of flack from the GOP. Perhaps that is unsurprising given that political party's legislative record. However, it seems like a lot of things the CFPB does are pretty popular bipartisan decisions. At the end of the day, consumers like being protected, and all voters are consumers of something in the economy.
-
US finalizes rule to remove medical bills from credit reports
47 votes -
Comment on ‘Worst-case scenario’: when needed most, New Orleans bollards were missing in action in ~design
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, opinion Tone: neutral, maybe being uncharitable Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none The beads aren’t new in New Orleans. It is kind of ridiculous that they are...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, opinion
- Tone: neutral, maybe being uncharitable
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
The beads aren’t new in New Orleans. It is kind of ridiculous that they are using bollards that are so easily broken. Preventing large particles from clogging machinery isn’t a new problem either.
It does require money and the right engineering solution, and you’re right that they couldn’t predict the future. Still, they knew this event was happening. It wasn’t an impromptu protest.
But also, it’s strange that this story is getting national attention and yet people ignore the many preventable traffic fatalities that happen on everyday streets due to a lack of physical protection. Parades do feature many pedestrians but so do… all sidewalks.
-
Comment on ‘Worst-case scenario’: when needed most, New Orleans bollards were missing in action in ~design
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none There are not rigorous laws requiring comprehensive hardened physical protection on...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, information, opinion
- Tone: neutral
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
There are not rigorous laws requiring comprehensive hardened physical protection on pedestrian rights-of-way, unlike how the law requires curbs/sidewalks/crosswalks (eg ADA 1990), if that’s what you’re asking.
Some cities have rules requiring barriers during parades, but they are not that focused on pedestrian safety, just traffic management (and often not laws). Most parade barricades I’ve seen are made of wood and do not stop vehicles at all. Some bigger cities use Jersey barriers and other hardened solutions.
There are certainly bureaucratic prerequisites to install permanent bollards in many places. In my city, the Council has to pass a bill for every such protective barrier along any public right-of-way. It’s routine, and maybe reasonable to require that. But if a member of Council arbitrarily decided they didn’t want a bollard there—for any reason, including quasi-legal ones—it would probably never be installed. Unfortunately this is not a hypothetical as safety infrastructure is regularly stymied by politicians catering to outspoken or well-connected constituents who prefer to, like, park on sidewalks.
As for temporary bollards, getting road closures is part of the permitting/approval process for public events. In my experience this is again focused on traffic management and not protection of VRUs like pedestrians. City officials assume most drivers will see a wooden barrier and not try to drive through it. They also do not want to pay for heavier barriers as they are more annoying/expensive to move.
It seems like the NO team were using heavier barricades, but a good system shouldn’t be defeated by plastic beads on an important night like NYE. You can’t predict every erratic behavior but I don’t think it is difficult to force residents to move parked cars to clear all vehicles from the area, and then set up barriers consistently. You only need like a couple emergency vehicles and they can start within the cordoned off area, and a couple emergency routes with like 1 retractable bollard/gate each. (They should not be left in the “down” position, they can be operated via remote control so there are no delays…..) It’s not that complicated. Or in a big celebration, the pedestrian area could even be made large enough to include a hospital so that few/no retractable bollards are even needed. Then you can just use Jersey barriers or planters. Super simple.
-
Comment on The average American spent 2.5 months on their phone in 2024 in ~tech
scroll_lock Link ParentComment box Scope: comment response, opinion Tone: neutral, a little concerned Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I checked my Screen Time on my iPhone and it gave me an average of 2-4 hours per day...Comment box
- Scope: comment response, opinion
- Tone: neutral, a little concerned
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I checked my Screen Time on my iPhone and it gave me an average of 2-4 hours per day over the past month. Some days were as high as 6h. The lowest was about 45m.
And I'm someone who actively tries not to use my phone all the time. I have almost all notifications off, and often I leave my phone in a place I can't see it. And somehow it still occupies this much of my time.
If you include teenagers, I think it's absolutely reasonable to see an average of 5+ hours. Perhaps the data is being skewed by people "that use their phone for 16 hours a day"... and perhaps that number of people is way larger than you or I thought. Either way, I doubt that much screen time is good for anyone.
Comment box
FWIW this map omits several datasets. It focuses on mainline/long-ish distance trains, mostly Amtrak and suburban commuter trains, omitting many of the heavily utilized metro systems in the USA. (I think it’s missing some suburban systems too.)
For example, the NYC MTA is completely untracked, even though it’s the biggest and most active subway on the continent. NY/NJ PATH missing too. Most Philly SEPTA trains are untracked, heavy rail metros, light rail trollies, and the high-speed line, and also NJ PATCO. Los Angeles suburban Metrolink is tracked, but not the rather extensive subway. etc
There are lots of empty swaths of land with no trains on this map, but there are also zero people in much of that land area. By not tracking local trains (where people live), the situation seems worse than it really is. Trains don’t need to cover every inch of the continent.
But to your point, the US and Canada have absolutely dropped the ball on what is the most energy-efficient, space-efficient, and with modern technology time-efficient form of transportation for large numbers of people. In addition to mainstream obliviousness to transportation science (and subsequent reluctance to fund it), the Anglosphere and especially the USA are uniquely terrible at building transit. It’s not just political will, it’s also hardened professional incompetence, project bloat, and myopic national exceptionalism. Alon Levy’s Pedestrian Observations blog describes many of the reasons why in more depth and with more authority.