scroll_lock's recent activity

  1. Idle complaints of indebtedness and isolation

    Comment box Scope: information, explanation of psychological state Tone: neutral, bummed, defeated Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Hello. I usually talk about trains, except today, I just want to...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, explanation of psychological state
    • Tone: neutral, bummed, defeated
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Hello. I usually talk about trains, except today, I just want to vent on my finances and my wishes for a less expensive world.

    I have found myself in financial straits,as I had amassed debt last year, lost work for months and amassed more debt. It’s in the low tens of thousands. of course I also lost my healthcare because I live in a rich country run by morally destitute anti-intellectuals.

    On paper, I will pay off the debt in 18-24 months, if god allows. I have work now.

    This city’s transit system has been hobbled in bad faith and will be destroyed come January….Fares have already risen, service cut. My train to work will be cut because the state refuses to provide services for its most productive citizens. It is twice as long by bus, suicide by bicycle on roads built for tanks, so I will have to sacrifice time or life.

    It seems the price of electricity has increased. I would generate my own, but it is impractical.

    Sadly my possessions are breaking too. This is the way of things, it’s just miserable timing, and each discovery of a failing mechanism or dilapidated object piles onto the defeat. The window frame has rotted and the glass fallen -- the house is frozen. Not a single plant survives. (The landlord will fix it, but not hurriedly…..) Bulbs burnt out, rooms dark. My bicycle needs new brakes, a new chain, my helmet has been destroyed and should be replaced, but for now I have been riding without. The computer has broken after 14 years, admittedly about time…. An expensive thing to replace, so now I only have my phone, whose battery has degraded quite a lot and will not be usable for too much longer, and a small laptop on death’s door too. I had worn my single pair of walking shoes for 5 years until, yesterday, the sole fell off. (Thankfully, I have one more, but it is formal and uncomfortable) A new pair is more costly than I remember… I know a cheap one will disintegrate in a season and do nothing for the snow, and a quality one is beyond financial prudence. My jacket is worn and torn by years and embers, beyond my ability to sew, and I must darn and darn and darn all the socks and gloves with holes, which I hate to do, and i am not good at. The denim jeans are ripped, in a place difficult to patch, and the pockets torn. I cannot bear the cold the same anymore, so I also need an overcoat, which I cannot afford. The fitted sheets are inexplicably torn by some punitive act of god, probably irreparably. The pillows are compressed, worthless, and causing me pain. Even the tent, which I might use to regain some sanity in the woods, has had its elastic poles dried solid and is basically unusable. At least I have a few books.

    My lifestyle is structurally cheap. Affordable city, relatively low rent, multiple housemates, no car, only occasional commute, no dog, no wife, no children. Not too much to pay for. I eat simply. I am content with it.

    Yet somehow I find myself with hundreds of dollars of credit card purchases this month, more than an entire paycheck, and last was also more. Qualifying for a healthcare plan has reduced my medical costs, but the difference is withheld, and I’m realizing that often it costs more than it would cost out of pocket, so at best it makes no difference. The dental and vision are exorbitant, so I just hope I don’t get a cavity.

    I suspect I need glasses, or will soon. I can tell my eyesight is beginning to worsen. But it’ll have to wait a couple years.

    The fear of a worse medical emergency persists. The deductible is rather high for a plan that offers no HSA and the co-pay is unremarkable, the coverage limited. Perhaps the least useful healthcare plan I’ve ever had.

    I do not gamble. I like to drink beer but have abstained recently. My hobbies are inspecting train and street infrastructure, studying the Holy Bible, moralizing on the internet and persuading the government to institute a better society. I lapse sometimes and make impulsive purchases, but not frequently. I have not even gone to see a game in two years.

    It’s a great pain to review your statements and recognize that almost none of the purchases were wasteful, only a few technically unnecessary. There were just too many overall.

    What upsets me most is the social distance I have gained from my condition of functional poverty. the agony of refusing visits, trips, games, concerts, shows, dinners, coffees, drinks grinds on me daily. Yes it is still nice to say hello, it is just not the same. The pity, or disgust, the symbolic offers of charity received. Mostly the confusion—the awkwardness, the unsolicited advice (which I don’t normally mind, but it gets old). I prefer to socialize with bourgeois progressives, academics and professionals who care about engineering and mathematics and government policy and theory. It’s what I care about. I do not really resent them, but everything they do costs more money than I possess, so it is difficult to see friends and I cannot hope to keep up with colleagues after work.

    I don’t object to work but I resent the fact that I must pay for my own healthcare. I also resent that my government neglects my transportation and my safety. I resent the pollution of the air, the NIMBYism driving up rents and leaving the addicted even more hopeless. I acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made that have led me here. I can’t undo the past, but Congress could socialize all medicine in the next budget if it wanted to…. repeatedly chooses not to.

    That’s all. I just wanted to complain. You can give me advice if you want. I’m relatively financially literate, just poor and human.

    46 votes
  2. Comment on A 'death train' is haunting south Florida in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral, same kind of weird cynical/optimistic thing going on Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: a little bit making fun of government...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral, same kind of weird cynical/optimistic thing going on
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: a little bit making fun of government agencies

    Well, you make good comments, I'm saying:

    1. that this project isn't relatively over-expensive on a micro level compared to benefits from a safety or transportation efficiency perspective. It's expensive but it's in the same class as other big projects FDOT does regularly.

    2. we can do way more TOD and VZ infrastructure on a macro level from a financial perspective. I see why you think this is irrelevant. I am saying this to emphasize that we designed our whole world, and we can re-design it. It's fully possible. The sky is the limit. It's not too hard or too difficult in general. (Building the interstates was harder & more expensive at a time when we were poorer. so this shouldn't FEEL so hard.) I just think it's important to be optimistic. Our culture is often the opposite.

    i also talk too much.

    It would be more convincing to talk specifically about how the Florida Department of Transportation in particular manages its transportation budget and how it should be spent on different projects.

    I can say with full confidence that the federal DOT and every state DOT allocate excessive funding to highway projects at the expense of passenger rail. In absolute dollars it's something like a 7:1 ratio nationally, and probably more like 14:1 in Florida (from memory, don't cite that). Dollars don't translate to impact, but this tells you at a high level what their priorities are.

    A few DOTs do better, like California (because of CAHSR, SF, LA) and New York (because of NYC), but most of the land area in those states continues to receive car-centric capital investment. (Although New York has been removing a few highways, like in Rochester.) You don't actually need to look at the finances to see this: just look at ridership splits by mode: if Florida allocated funds to efficiently move people, it would already have at least one high-speed rail line connecting all its major metros, but it doesn't. (FDOT is only interested in efficiently moving vehicles, which is financially inefficient.) Florida rail ridership is accordingly low.

    Some MPOs and RPOs (lol) are more progressive about planning than others, but it hasn't filtered through to the DOTs yet. They're bastions of hardcore traffic pseudoscience. They're extremely insular and are not interested in "activism." MPOs are also scared of that word, but they at least try. (Think of traffic engineers as people who like to solve math problems. In their spare time, they optimize Factorio production lines. They have a different education than urban planners and their priorities are typically these math problems, not societal change per se. Some exceptions, not a lot.)

    I have not worked with Florida MPOs personally but I have not heard of them trying visionary things like Denver or Pudget Sound MPOs.

    I don't see the relevance of some other things you're bringing up. Sure, there are almost 50,000 miles of grade-separated Interstate highways in the US. But that's money already spent. How do you get from there to budgeting for new projects? It seems like similar logic to saying that the New York City subway system exists, therefore we have lots of money.

    Eliminating and narrowing highways would free up DOT budgets to focus on more efficient transportation infrastructure. So would choosing not to build more highways. Highways have an opportunity cost.

    We do have lots of money. Our economy has grown since 1957 and so has our tax base. Quick maths: federal taxes alone collected in 1957 were about $83 billion and about $5.2 trillion in nominal dollars. Per-capita, that's about $487/person in 1957 and $15k/person in 2025. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $5000/person in 1957, so we have 3x the federal tax revenue as then. At the most theoretical level, we managed a staggeringly large, inefficient infrastructure project with 1/3 of the federal budget as present. (Note interstates were built over years.) Obviously budget priorities today include some systems that did not exist in 1957, but it's not like we have less money in absolute terms. And the choice to raise or lower taxes to cover any delta is still a societal decision that we have chosen to neglect.

    Big-picture, these are projects on the time frame of a 25-year long-range plan. In the short term, of course Brightline has budget constraints with whatever grant they can obtain for a grade separation. But for how big these population centers are, it's still just not that expensive.

    My earlier figure of $12b for the whole route is probably an underestimate. Let's say $20b from Miami to Orlando. FDOT capital budget in 2025 was $15 billion, ~5% of which was for railroads. Practically, it would take at least 5 years to grade-separate Brightline's whole route. If the state government paid for 100% of it, then over 5 years that would be $4b/yr. If they did top-priority separations in the first 5 years and low-priority separations in the following 5 years, then that's $2b/yr for 10 years.

    Of course the state DOT will not pay for 100% of the cost. Brightline could finance maybe 1/3 of it. The federal government could chip in a substantial amount, maybe another third. So that means over 5 years the cost to the DOT is closer to $1.3b/yr or $650m for 10 years.

    That is a big project. It's just not absurdly big. For context, the NYC Gateway Program is about $16b. Big project for sure! But only a portion of the budget. Meanwhile, FDOT are spending $500 million to add new lanes to I-4, $340 million to widen a small section of I-275, etc., adding up to a supermajority of that $15b budget. (There are more examples of big boondoggles, and the small ones are collectively expensive too.) If FDOT just decided to incentivize a modal shift to rail, it would cost the same amount or less upfront, and have lower maintenance costs. Transit-Oriented Development pre-empts wasteful highway spending. Alternatively, this could be easily paid for with new revenue using a small "cap and trade" tax (like California), small sales tax, small gas tax, or even (self-defeatingly) a small train ticket tax. The kind of person who comes to Tildes will complain about regressive taxes, so OK, a small income tax or property tax or corporate tax or whatever needs to happen. Fine with me. Florida citizens choose their tax system. Any politician could push for a ballot measure or legislature vote to make this happen. If they don't, it's because they choose not to: they ignore the safety benefits, they ignore the maintenance efficiency benefits, they ignore the broader economic development benefits. (They know what Brightline is, it's not obscure.)

    You say "we have done most of the easy stuff" and maybe that's usually true, but from the article, it didn't sound like it was true for this particular railroad line in south Florida?

    They have done most of this, or allocated funding for it:

    A grant for $24,934,138 announced in August 2022 to the Florida Department of Transportation for improvements to 330 highway-railroad crossings, along 195 miles of corridor, including fencing, crossing delineators, crisis support signage and other intrusion prevention mitigations.

    195 =/= 250, but they have likely focused on urban and suburban segments, or this complements existing protections.

    The problem is that these solutions just don't help much. People get onto tracks at grade crossings because they use roads to get to grade crossings. They're legally allowed to cross there. Then they illegally stay in the railroad ROW, and then they get hit by a train.

    4 votes
  3. Comment on A 'death train' is haunting south Florida in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: resolute, optimistic Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Projects have budget constraints. We choose what those projects are, and their...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: resolute, optimistic
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    I’m not sure where you’re going with this “the money exists” stuff. Sure, there is money out there somewhere, in theory, and the Fed could create more money. But real projects operate under budget constraints.

    Projects have budget constraints. We choose what those projects are, and their scope. It's not "in theory" - it's "in reality" and it doesn't involve wrecking the economy. (Other countries do this better than the USA, it's not trailblazing) Similar idea as why we fail to feed everyone in the country despite producing more than enough food to do so: an issue of distribution, not a lack of abundance. But this might be simpler to fix... no need to upend capitalism, just build some bridges.

    State and federal DOTs in the USA are allocated enough money with current tax structures to complete transformational, visionary capital transportation projects, especially for passenger rail. MPOs and DOTs choose, repeatedly, to allocate an oversized portion of that funding to inefficient roadway projects that at best maintain the status quo and usually fail to deliver on promises to resolve congestion or holistically improve safety. They justify this car-centric spending allocation with a combination of institutional inertia, pseudoscientific/circular traffic modeling projections, and fear of political backlash. Even "progressive" MPOs like in Seattle and Philadelphia lock themselves into self-fulfilling prophecies about car centricity. Planners individually come up with lots of great ideas, but institutional knowledge in these places favors the dominant cultural milieu, which gives high roadway use the benefit of the doubt by default. (Source: I talk to these kinds of people a lot, also I just spent a lot of time reading my MPO's new long-range plan. It's okay, but it still makes assumptions that incentivize overindexing on car infrastructure. The DOT will ignore most of it anyway to build wider highways.)

    Roadway projects induce more roadway use. Roads are some of most self-destructive and least inefficient forms of transportation we have ever devised. No other form of ground transportation deteriorates at the rate of a highway, an inefficiency inherent to the mode. Most vehicles have single occupants despite weighing a ton or more. For the number of people a highway transports, its vehicles exert a lot of force onto its asphalt. (The "weight of people transported" to "weight of vehicle" ratio is bad.) That loosens asphalt particles, which enables water filtration, which creates cracks and potholes that freezing weather exacerbates. Paving roads with more durable materials raises costs and has various engineering problems. Every attempt to make highway vehicles more efficient leads to 1) a bus or 2) a train.

    Major resurfacings have billion-dollar price tags that hardly anyone questions. Multi-billion dollar widening and "traffic optimization" projects repeatedly fail to resolve urban and suburban congestion. Complex car-centric signalization projects make marginal improvements to design capacity while worsening pedestrian safety and disincentivizing walking. More and larger roadways have higher maintenance costs, which creates the appearance of a "tight budget." Roadway maintenance projects are generally prioritized ("we can't maintain our existing roads, so we definitely can't build your train line") even though a mode shift toward rail would be more cost-efficient (and safer) in the long term.

    All choices! We continue to overbuild roads because it's a cultural preference, not because it's efficient, effective, or good for society.

    The mileage of urban/suburban passenger rail services in the USA is quite low. We grade separated 50,000 miles of interstate highway crossings (it's part of the design standard from... 1957!!!). The Northeast Corridor is like 457 miles. Brightline Florida is around 250 miles. Even every single Amtrak route including freight lines is ~21,000 miles (mostly rural with few crossings and fewer fatalities per crossing than urban/suburban). We have done much harder, much more expensive things in the past. We can do this if we prioritize it!

    Efficiency matters, particularly for expensive infrastructure projects. For the cost of one grade separation, what could you do to improve safety along the entire rest of the line?

    Not much. We have done most of the easy stuff, like signaling, train speed limits, and basic gates. Trespassing + grade crossing collisions are collectively the source of ~95% of passenger rail fatalities in the USA: look at (Trespasser Fatalities + Highway-Rail Incident Fatalities) / Total Fatalities.

    • Most VRU deaths (people outside vehicles) on railroads are caused by trespassing, which mostly begins by a pedestrian accessing a railroad from an at-grade crossing. (People rarely access railroads from random places, instead they come from another road/path which intersects with it.)
    • Most passenger deaths are from derailments of some variety, which are mostly caused by cars on the track (aka highway-rail incidents). Cars also overwhelmingly access railroad tracks from grade crossings.
    • Debris, signaling issues, poorly maintained tracks, failing rolling stock, and other misc causes can cause fatalities, but this is a small proportion of deaths. It's like 2 dozen a year (out of ~800-900). Worth fixing, just not the priority!
    • Fencing reduces pedestrian deaths. Financially, fencing is peanuts. You could chain-link fence the 500 miles (250 x 2) of Brightline Florida's route for ~$50 million, assuming an expensive choice of fence. But you can't fence grade crossings themselves. Grade crossings are the places where people access railroads, so to stop pedestrian trespassing, you have to grade separate anyway. Fencing also does not stop any train-car collisions.
    • 4-way mechanical gates at grade crossings can also help. (Gates that cover both lanes, so you can't drive around them.) These are worth investing in! They don't stop pedestrian trespassing though, and they don't stop cars from driving onto the tracks, they just make it psychologically less appealing (cars can often still drive around, off-road, or drive through them: they're flimsy to prevent people from getting trapped). They also mechanically fail easily, which reduces their effectiveness. (It would be possible to engineer stronger and more encompassing barriers at intersections, like huge gates that rise from the ground and fully block an intersection, which combined with fencing could stop some car collisions, but not in the case of driving onto the tracks at an "allowed" time and just staying there; and pedestrians could still trespass for the same reason.)
    • Platform screen doors make it harder to accidentally fall on the tracks at a station. This is not a statistically big safety issue, more of a social fear (it's overreported in media). It mostly keeps debris off tracks, which reduces electrical fires for third rail systems (not applicable to Amtrak or Brightline, which use catenary/conventional fuel). However, PSDs require high-level platforms, which cost about as much as a grade separation to build. (We need to make all station platforms high-level anyway for alighting efficiency reasons, so building PSDs on low-level platforms and then destroying them to rebuild the platform is a waste of money.) PSDs do not reduce pedestrian trespassing between stations though, only at them.
    • Upgrading signaling systems can allow higher safe speeds and conceivably reduce collisions slightly. Boston recently invested in signal system improvements to eliminate most slow zones on one of its subways. This is more of an efficiency improvement than safety per se.

    Grade separations serve the dual purpose of improving operational efficiency and safety:

    • Federal guidelines limit non-grade-separated segments of train lines to 79 mph even if curve design and rolling stock are safely capable of higher speeds. At-grade crossings mean that even if we expensively straightened tight curves to allow higher design speeds, it would remain illegal and unsafe to operate at HSR speeds on many routes without also doing grade separation.
    • Grade separations reduce the frequency of non-fatal delays. This improves on-time reliability, which significantly improves commuter ridership. This is especially important on shared track, such as when Amtrak leases a track/operating rights to a local railroad like SEPTA or vice versa.
    • A time-efficient passenger rail network reduces automobile use. Trains are just safer than cars. By reducing the amount of VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person, we reduce collisions in general. Spending money on active transportation (walk/bike) and Bus Rapid Transit also reduces automobile VMT locally/regionally. This is actually quite cheap and quite efficient, with many independent benefits, but indirect for this purpose.

    Sometimes it might be possible to avoid having to grade-separate tricky intersections by just building a new section of right of way. Unfortunately, American planners are infamously poor at efficiently spending money on transit/rail projects. They make inefficient designs using inefficient methodologies, and have relatively little interest in emulating global best practices. Sometimes this is the right solution, I just wouldn't count on it.

    But grade crossings are well-understood as a component of road infrastructure and don't suffer as much from that problem as a bloated train station concourse design does. American DOTs can sure build road overpasses!

    The best use of funds on a timeline is probably to grade-separate all intersections near population centers first, in order of proximity to the largest population centers. It's more efficient to do the urban/suburban crossings first and the rural ones later, because rural crossings statistically have less traffic and therefore cause fewer fatalities. Some exceptions apply. But this could halve the price tag of grade-separating "everything," or more.

    6 votes
  4. Comment on A 'death train' is haunting south Florida in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, question Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Thanks for your perspective. Great point about pedestrian activity. Have you anecdotally noticed any...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, question
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Thanks for your perspective. Great point about pedestrian activity.

    Have you anecdotally noticed any wildlife crossing pattern changes in areas where we’ve built grade-separated wildlife crossings?

    I’ve read some studies suggesting that they reduce crashes, but I’d love to hear from an actual train operator.

    5 votes
  5. Comment on A 'death train' is haunting south Florida in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none For sure physically possible. I live near a railroad abutting a riverside pedestrian trail....
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    For sure physically possible. I live near a railroad abutting a riverside pedestrian trail. There are multiple at-grade pedestrian/bike crossings on this ACTIVE freight line in an urban area. The railroad is entirely fenced except for these ~3 crossing points. The intersections have crosswalk lights which are supposed to display a “Stop” walk signal when a train is approaching. In theory the intersections could be further upgraded to raise automatic barriers to physically block access (like for a rail/road crossing, but maybe more effective with sufficient pedestrian fencing). The walk signals could also be better placed for visibility, and an auditory signal could be added—this all might help, won’t hurt, and it’s not too expensive. It’s mostly a moot point because trains only occasionally run here during daytime.

    The crossings are important for the trail and eliminating them outright would incentivize dangerous behavior as @mild_takes mentions. People would use a pedestrian bridge if forced, but there are space constraints and an ADA-compliant ramp may not fit; an elevator would be expensive and liable to break. Signalization and utility work is always complex, and the city would need to work with the railroad to do anything. It’s annoying to do - and it’s no one’s priority - so the city has just left it as-is. Imperfect without trenching the railroad. Statistically unlikely to lead to any fatalities (just not high enough traffic/speeds), but it could happen. If someone dies, the local activists will raise hell and maybe get a ped bridge.

    No solution is perfect. These stop-gap solutions like signals are vulnerable to human error. People are irrational: they ignore direct warnings, they climb over fences, and they make mistakes (trip and fall, misjudge distance, etc…..). Sight/hearing impaired people might not comprehend the signals. Drunk people do drunk stuff. Teenagers intentionally evade fencing to go surfing. Movable barriers electronically or mechanically fail. People even walk long distances on grade-separated or fencing tracks from unfenced areas (for whatever reason) and then get stuck.

    Grade separation is still the best solution though. The money exists in our tax base and economy. It’s a societal, philosophical decision—do we value Vision Zero more than equally expensive highway widening projects?

    5 votes
  6. Comment on Curtailment - the wind industry’s $1 billion problem (and how to fix it) in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: summary, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Governments curtail wind and other renewable generation when generating capacity outweighs the grid’s...
    Comment box
    • Scope: summary, information
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: none
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Governments curtail wind and other renewable generation when generating capacity outweighs the grid’s ability to deliver electricity to demand sources.

    The government has to pay some generators producing “too much” electricity to stop while switching on oil/gas power plants. (It’s not too much, it’s just in the wrong place.) This is largely caused by insufficient grid transmission infrastructure and a lack of electricity export systems to balance the load.

    Tom Bray explains why the green energy transition is still possible despite this problem.

    3 votes
  7. Comment on Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US? in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none A "roundabout" with a stop sign or traffic signal is actually called a "traffic circle"...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    A "roundabout" with a stop sign or traffic signal is actually called a "traffic circle" (aka "rotary"). In urban planning they are considered different things. In general:

    • Roundabouts are single-lane with no hard obstructions to level of service but perhaps soft ones. They have a design that forces continuous, low speeds and driver alertness. Having only one lane, they have short pedestrian crossing distances and are therefore a better design for multimodal settings.
    • Traffic circles/rotaries are multi-lane and have obstructions to LOS like stop signs and traffic lights. Sometimes they ask traffic in the circle to yield to entering traffic, unlike a roundabout where the cars in the circle always have the right of way.

    The "design" is consistent insofar as these all adhere to the MUTCD. They're just different pieces of infrastructure. In my opinion, roundabouts are pretty cool and traffic circles are pretty NOT cool.

    4 votes
  8. Comment on A 'death train' is haunting south Florida in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: cynical/jaded but optimistic that change remains possible Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none It's nice for popular media coverage to...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: cynical/jaded but optimistic that change remains possible
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    It's nice for popular media coverage to correctly place the blame on the lack of investment in infrastructure. As the article notes, this is not unique to Brightline at all. They have more grade crossings than some comparable routes... the problem isn't unusual though.

    Sealing off the entire Brightline route or elevating the entire track would simply not be economically feasible for a private company.

    Yes it would. Being "a private company" does not make visionary projects impossible. Just not feasible for Brightline, whose lack of grade separation forces lower maximum speeds which forces longer travel times which lowers demand which lowers ticket revenue which lowers income. Their "B" bond rating is so poor because they're locked into a difficult right of way. That hurts their credit, which makes it harder to get loans to pair with already insufficient grants to improve the ROW. And so on. Same old same old! Chicken and egg!

    Capital projects almost always happen with government funding anyway. Brightline West is being built because of a multi-billion dollar federal grant. Brightline Florida's grade separation would be no different. If we want to get real.....freight railroads often grade-separate urban and suburban tracks to improve throughput/reliability and reduce crashes. Flyovers are common on high-capacity lines. Freight isn't likely to grade separate 250 miles of track at a time, but they've collectively done well more than that.

    We grade separated every interstate highway. Almost 50k miles of grade separation. We can do the same for the remainder of our passenger rail network. It's not too hard and it's not too expensive.

    Because of all the elements at any intersection, the process of closing even one crossing can be convoluted and expensive.

    There are technical challenges with grade separation in tight physical areas. It is also expensive. Could be $4m or $40m for a typical intersection, $292m+ for a uniquely nasty complicated one (rare). $40m is a lot. Can't deny it. But it's not... too much. $12 billion for the whole route? Ok, fairly big project at a DOT, but not that big for a 250-mile corridor. Not unprecedented at all. My state DOT is spending half that much to rebuild like 3 highway exits on I-95 for marginal improvements to congestion. If we're seriously worried about cost, one of these is clearly a better choice of funds than the other, but we're choosing not to do it.

    Brightline says that it is an advocate for closing certain crossings on its route, but that this rarely happens “without local support.”

    Emphasis on this coded speech about NIMBYism. It's difficult to make safety improvements because without fail, small groups of local residents find ways to oppose literally all infrastructure projects, no matter how beneficial, including those which would save lives. They're not centralized, it's just a theme. Sometimes this is justified! For public safety projects, usually the outcry is an overreaction. In either case, this country defers so heavily to local preferences in situations where they shouldn't (while selectively ignoring local opposition anytime they want to build another highway), like common sense grade separation, that nothing gets done. Whether or not a particular opposition position is narrowly justified is unimportant if it consistently stops anything from getting better. Sometimes we just have to accept that things change and no solution is perfect.

    Local groups will always oppose closing a grade crossing because they want to maintain the convenience of crossing there, even if someone dies occasionally. Individualistically, I get it. No one likes a detour. Tragedy of the commons. But they will also rarely themselves voluntarily help pay for a grade separation because no one wants to pay higher taxes, especially those who can afford it. The only time widespread grade separation gets done consistently is when it has strong state and/or federal DOT support. It can mostly only be done with a dedicated body of technocrats pushing for it in a spreadsheet in the capital. Or by an extremely motivated set of public activists and a genuinely thoughtful sponsoring legislator. Not so common.

    The current anti-intellectual administration has notably canceled grade separation projects in California as part of a vitriolic political revenge game against its perceived opponents. Administration has also indefinitely halted many Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants, including numerous grade separations, for "reconsideration" merely because that law was championed by Joe Biden. Completely pointless.

    The technical problem has been solved centuries ago. We've understood the concept of grade separation since the first time we ever built a bridge over a canal. The railroads have been doing it since the 1800s. The money exists in our economy and in our government budgets to do this. We collectively choose not to do it for a confluence of unrelated local and political reasons.

    36 votes
  9. Comment on New California law overrules local zoning to boost housing in ~society

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: 1 political joke I'm supportive of tenant rights...I know people who are very involved with...
    • Exemplary
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: 1 political joke

    I'm supportive of tenant rights...I know people who are very involved with organizing that. I don't fault condo owners for suing. Just observing that their ability to organize is still a deterrent for builders.

    Organized labor in civil construction in general consistently has the same problem: unionized workers demand high wages, so the capital cost of constructing public works in union cities is extremely high. It's great for the workers, it just makes it difficult to build anything quickly because projects have high costs. I support the labor movement, but when people complain about why we don't have high-speed rail or whatever, that's a contributing factor. (Definitely not the most egregious... see analysis from Alon Levy)

    Sound Transmission Class requirements in the USA are 50+, so that level of sound bleed shouldn't happen. For new construction, that building sounds shoddily constructed. Unfortunately, yes, many builders either hire incompetent laborers or scam their clients. Maybe construction wouldn't have cut so many corners if the developer hired union labor instead... but that's more expensive. :p

    (I am empathetic toward your mom. I once lived in a unit with a window that couldn't shut, so the heat did not stay in, and exterior noise was constant. It was not pleasant and took years for the landlord to fix.)

    In fact, I think that maybe apartment owners and apartment buildings should also have such a statute of limitations

    Construction negligence has a similar SOL for rental properties as condos. In some jurisdictions it's longer.

    The issue is more that renters don't care or don't realize that they can sue their landlords. Landlords themselves don't know or don't care about construction issues.

    Pretty much all jurisdictions have minimum habitability requirements. Sometimes the tenant doesn't have to sue the landlord, they can just report it to the city and following claim approval (sometimes) they're allowed to withhold rent until the landlord fixes the issue.

    There needs to be someone held responsible for poorly built housing.

    This is what construction inspections are for. There are supposed to be inspections at every step. Your city's housing authority has an office of building inspectors who are supposed to evaluate foundational and framing work for alignment, among other things (like STC). There should be separate inspections for plumbing, electricity, HVAC, fire, etc.

    If your city (or county) isn't doing this, or is doing a bad job, there are lots of reasons. The solutions are not easy. An underfunded housing authority is caused by municipal overspending and under-taxation, which is common. Many cities have too many unproductive roads to profitably maintain, and are reluctant to tax their residents more than the bare minimum. (Educated liberals always support higher taxes until they are being taxed more highly; then it is an injustice.) Of course some cities have such low property values that the tax base can barely sustain operations to begin with.

    Or your building inspectors could suck at their jobs.

    Taxes are very difficult and the intricacies of tax policy are outside my wheelhouse. Academics who study urbanism lately tend to favor something called the Land Value Tax (LVT), a part of Georgism economic philosophy, which is supposed to solve some of the issues with existing tax systems. I think that is federally considered unconstitutional, but states can levy it. Pennsylvania has done this in a few cities, but like most housing policies it needs to be statewide to be particularly effective. Most places also tax improvements (not just land value), which discourages building, unless the improvement tax rate is lower than the LVT, which I think works.

    6 votes
  10. Comment on New California law overrules local zoning to boost housing in ~society

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral, mildly ticked off (at the state of the world, not any of you) Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none SB 79 allows developers to...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral, mildly ticked off (at the state of the world, not any of you)
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    SB 79 allows developers to build more dense or multifamily housing near transit lines. This can include owner-occupied condo units. Physically, there is no inherent difference between the footprint of a condo building and a renter apartment building. This legislation authorizes more of each.

    The ratio of new condos to new rental buildings depends on market conditions and local regulations. Bafflingly, local municipalities may have more complex building requirements for condos than rental buildings. Maybe there are higher minimum parking requirements (almost always unscientific), maybe there are higher floor space requirements in anticipation of larger families, or maybe there's an onerous aesthetic review process for condos specifically.

    These might ostensibly be to "protect" condo buyers from some perceived issue with typical modern construction or to establish some sort of higher minimum property value. This is because people buying condos are less economically sophisticated than institutional landlords. Local government may care more about condo buyers from a development that turns out to have a flaw (real or perceived) than institutional landlords (who likely aren't residents). They want to protect their voters. Okay, makes sense.

    In extreme cases, this kind of regulation can disincentivize developers from building condos, and instead predispose them to rental buildings. Minimum parking requirements are probably the worst example of this. It is sometimes the case that a local government sets a higher MPR for a condo than a rental building because they expect or want "real [long-term] residents" to own cars, and renters (usually younger) not to. This can be well-intentioned or a way to discriminate against certain kinds of people who want to buy homes, such as poorer people who coincidentally don't own cars. In a multifamily building, a MPR requires either:

    • An underground garage (extremely expensive to build, and/or takes space away from other amenities like gyms or individual storage units for residents)
    • Allocating ground-level space to a parking garage (makes multi-use impossible, which can hurt neighborhood attractiveness and therefore reduce expected selling values)
    • Allocating above-ground space to a parking garage (reduces sellable housing units). Remember that these buildings have height limits (again due to local preferences); developers can't just build higher to recoup the cost.

    So, as usual, the excessive regulatory codification of the storage of private vehicles and the interests of entrenched local landowners discourage the building of the kind of housing people actually want. (The solution is to NOT REQUIRE PARKING for the majority of new construction and just let the market rate decide how much parking to build.)

    Also, condo associations in the USA are extremely litigious. If you're a developer, there's a good chance you'll get sued by the condo HOA for the building you constructed! The statute of limitations is like a decade. You have to hope that the profit of building a condo exceeds the cost of litigation from picky people who live there. (Their litigation might be frivolous; it is still expensive and annoying to deal with.) Institutional developers can certainly also sue, but the kinds of things that condo owners sue over are likely to be much more minor. Renters don't care so much about minor defects because they don't plan to live there permanently, and only a few complaints get filtered through to the institutional owners anyway.

    The other issue can just be a perceived market demand, which is mostly cultural. If developers culturally believe that people who want to buy property mostly want to do so in single-family homes in the suburbs, that's where they'll build housing. They can also come to this conclusion using statistical evidence, even if it's wrong or incomplete. If you look at the number of new residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas in the USA, suburban usually wins out. But that's not necessarily because all of those people actually want to live there, it just means that's where they can afford a house. And that's influenced by... government regulation restricting the construction of housing in more heavily urbanized areas. It's cheaper and always legal for developers to build SFHs in some exurb off the highway, so that's what they do, so that's what people can afford to buy, so that's how they structure their lifestyle, so that's what developers see demand for, so that's what they build more of... etc.

    11 votes
  11. Comment on LA Metro's K Line extension to Torrance in ~transport

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: information, summary Tone: neutral Opinion: I guess so Sarcasm/humor: none Nandert's (Nick Andert) analysis of the new Los Angeles Metro K extension. The line will eventually...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, summary
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: I guess so
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Nandert's (Nick Andert) analysis of the new Los Angeles Metro K extension. The line will eventually run from Hollywood to the South Bay. He is a very knowledgeable transportation advocate.

    If you live in LA, I encourage you to show up at Metro HQ on October 23 to support the project. Details in the video.

    Local activism for environmentally friendly and economically beneficial transportation projects is always necessary to defeat uninformed NIMBY concerns.

    1 vote
  12. Comment on Donald Trump administration issues stop-work order for US offshore wind project in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: comment response, opinion Tone: snide Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Culture war grandstanding. TACO. The federal admin will back down just like they did in New York, lie or...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, opinion
    • Tone: snide
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Culture war grandstanding. TACO. The federal admin will back down just like they did in New York, lie or exaggerate about having won a negotiation, the base will cheer (or, more likely, not notice), and the media will move on.

    This wind farm is a great project that I have been following since construction began. The worst-case scenario is that the company cannot connect the project to the grid until 2029. Unfortunate, but whatever. The rest of the world is still electrifying. US electricity bills will just be higher than they need to be.

    Here's how you know this manufactured opposition won't last:

    The administration’s subsequent consideration of rules to further restrict access to tax credits for wind and solar projects alarmed even some Republicans, prompting Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Utah Sen. John Curtis to place holds on Treasury nominees as they awaited the department’s formal guidance.

    Clean energy is an economic benefit. Despite the pressure of the culture war, GOP politicians know that it benefits their constituents and are already having doubts about this maniacal fossil fuel obsession. The moment the media consensus declares the next American recession, you can be sure that they will be building wind and solar farms at a pace never before seen, because they'll ease up and let developers build anything: the most cost-effective energy system will be green.

    13 votes
  13. Comment on How “grid-forming inverters” are paving the way for 100% renewable energy in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Yes, they will. Corporations respond to profit incentives based on previous experience or speculation....
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Yes, they will. Corporations respond to profit incentives based on previous experience or speculation. Public companies have a statutory obligation to provide shareholder value. If it becomes more profitable to adopt clean energy technology, that's what they'll do. Almost all large energy companies are public.

    Private corporations can be more capricious, but they are still for-profit.

    Now, politicians are different. Politicians who hate clean energy for culture war reasons may legislatively enact financial incentives (tax breaks, etc) to keep it more profitable to burn fossil fuels than use solar panels. Then the corporations have no reason to switch to clean energy. But note that the politicians who benefit most from solar panels are actually in red states that otherwise have this whole culture wars animosity toward clean energy. Indiana etc have so much wind that the politicians there are less inclined to protect the fossil fuel industry if it'll hurt wind.

    The biggest political opposition will be from entrenched petrostates whose economies and government both rely on oil for authority.

    The bet I'd make is that clean energy technology can be made so much more efficient to deploy, scale, and maintain than fossil fuels that politicians and corporations (even in petrostates) have no recourse but to accept it. The extremely low upfront cost of solar makes it very attractive over large energy plants. Developments in modern geothermal tech are very similar to oil drilling and fracking with less risk for the corporation (not handling explosive chemicals anymore).

    The biggest barrier in the US is probably local NIMBY opposition. State-level politicians will eventually all support clean energy development because it boosts economic growth. Local politicians, like private corporations, can get away with being capricious because they only answer to local stakeholders. They will try not to issue permits to clean energy projects. Mostly, this is an anti-development thing, not specifically anti-clean energy. But if clean energy is the cheapest kind of energy project (which is already almost always true), then making it easier to build all projects results in 90%+ clean energy projects. NEPA and other environmental laws are often weaponized by NIMBYs for ostensibly ecological reasons, but really they are just opposing all development, regardless of its overarching environmental benefits.

    This is why solar is exciting to me personally, because it's so modular. It's easier to convince skeptical NIMBYs to let you add solar panels on your house than to add a field of them nearby. And once they see a few solar panels, suddenly they stop being this horrible evil thing, and they stop opposing larger developments quite as much.

    2 votes
  14. Comment on How “grid-forming inverters” are paving the way for 100% renewable energy in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link
    Comment box Scope: summary, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Accessible coverage of a technical solution to the electric grid stability problem of the transition...
    Comment box
    • Scope: summary, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    Accessible coverage of a technical solution to the electric grid stability problem of the transition to renewable energy.

    Grid operators currently receive some slack from power plants that spin turbines—including the dirtiest fossil fuels. The turbines have inertia that ensures grid frequency is stable. Wind and solar energy don’t really have this feature, and an unstable frequency can crash the grid.

    As with all things in the energy transition, very smart people are working on engineering solutions to this problem. Just Have a Think talks about how “grid-forming inverters” (as opposed to grid-following inverters) are being used successfully and at scale to maintain grid frequency stability with a highly renewable power mix.

    Every day, more of our electricity is generated through clean sources. Solar (in particular) and wind are winning economically. Increasingly, the “silver linings” of fossil fuel power are shown to be unnecessary from a technical perspective.

    Technology like this puts us on a great track for 100% renewable electricity generation.

    9 votes
  15. Comment on Aerophobia is having a moment in ~health.mental

    scroll_lock
    (edited )
    Link
    Comment box Scope: information, opinion Tone: wry at first, neutral mostly, later kind of pondering Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: there is 1 joke here I normally care about Facts and Logic, but if...
    Comment box
    • Scope: information, opinion
    • Tone: wry at first, neutral mostly, later kind of pondering
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: there is 1 joke here

    I normally care about Facts and Logic, but if irrational aerophobia convinces people to fly less and take trains more, that has substantial environmental benefits. As vehicle electrification grows, even a mode shift to cars is an unequivocal enviro improvement. The number of lives saved due to fewer CO2 emissions due to this “irrational” decision is consequential. (Directly from asthma and other respiratory conditions and indirectly from the numerous forms of climate change happening.)

    The net social mental health benefit to avoiding premature deaths is high!

    The counterargument is that a mode shift to cars results in more traffic fatalities (~1.2m baseline global). This is true, but still outweighed by avoided climate deaths from not emitting so much CO2 (~8m baseline global), plus incalculable indirect deaths. (Any mode shift would be a fraction of each, but a roughly proportional one.)

    I guess the response to this depends on how narrowly or broadly you think about mental health. Even if aerophobia is silly, and even if it’s indicative of a larger pattern of people being unable to reconcile numbers with emotions, in this case it happens to be something of a benefit. Personally, I won’t fight it.

    3 votes
  16. Comment on Today is Overshoot Day in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, opinion, speculation Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That’s a reasonable concern. Keep in mind that climate scientists make predictions using...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, opinion, speculation
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    That’s a reasonable concern. Keep in mind that climate scientists make predictions using models based on past data. The overshoot chart seems to track largely with population growth and industrialization/QOL changes. That won’t necessarily continue.

    Some animals, like coyotes, have the ability to change litter sizes according to their environmental conditions or stress. I don’t think humans have this ability biologically, but we emulate it economically.

    Birth rates have dropped in industrialized countries for many reasons, but I think the biggest is that there’s less structural economic incentive to have children. It’s not like they’re going to help out on the family farm anymore; while children bring much emotional joy they are almost exclusively a financial expense and not an asset. Even later in life, parents are increasingly expected to manage their own retirements and live alone rather than being taken care of by children in a multigenerational household. Even one child is expensive and having several is a particular strain. Households can acquire even more capital if women work rather than taking care of children. It’s more efficient to spend capital on gaining more capital, rather than spending it on a child/labor. People still have children, but in industrialized places it is basically for fun/emotional fulfillment or by accident. And evidently it seems like having 1–2 children can provide most or all of those benefits without costing toooo much.

    Inevitably this will result in population decline and therefore substantially less stress on earth’s resources. It is already happening locally in some countries and scientists seem to think that this will happen globally by around 2050–2080. The world will continue to industrialize and human labor will probably become less relevant in the economy as automation spreads and capital further establishes itself as the mechanism for financial prosperity, and tax policies are probably not going to be able to reverse it.

    Environmentally, I think this means that we avoid some of the dreaded “tipping points.” No comment on how this affects culture.

    3 votes
  17. Comment on Today is Overshoot Day in ~enviro

    scroll_lock
    Link Parent
    Comment box Scope: comment response, information, opinion Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none While humans have been burning coal for a long time, the global population was low enough...
    Comment box
    • Scope: comment response, information, opinion
    • Tone: neutral
    • Opinion: yes
    • Sarcasm/humor: none

    While humans have been burning coal for a long time, the global population was low enough and resource use in general was low enough for most of that duration that the aggregate “overshoot” could have been negligible.

    The population in 1970 was about 3.7 billion compared to over 8 billion today. In the 1970s far less of the world was industrialized than present, and even in industrialized places, absolute and per capita energy use was substantially lower.

    Environmental destruction at that time was still occurring, and has occurred for most of human history, but the scale of our society and resource consumption now is on a different level!

    5 votes