Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[Aaron]

So this question has been bugging me for a while now. I live in a town of 8500 people 45 minutes west of Ottawa in the Ottawa Valley. Now I have no particular attachment to this town, we only live here because:

A: My wife's parents live here

and

B: with my PTSD comes a problem dealing with large crowds

So I was wondering, with the end of oil in forty years (give or take) will the death of the town follow? And with it the death of all small towns across Canada and the US?

[tim31]

How do you define 'small'? Unless the town has the ability to be reasonably self sufficient, probably. I don't know what Canada's rail network is like; but alternative-energy-sourced rail transport could play a large part in post-oil commerce. The point is, without the infrastructure available, produce doesn't move about, and this is bad news for cities as well. I don't suppose there is a lot of primary producing land in urban Ottawa.

[Aaron]

Well Renfrew generates it's own electricity with a dam in town and a possible future wind turbine. But there's no rail head here just a line through town. There's plenty of farm land in the area and in the Ottawa Valley. So we may be able to feed ourselves but I'm curious as to how we are to move that food around. I plan to buy a hobby farm in the near future and grow a large portion of our own vegtables and raise some of our own meat but if I'm going to be cut off from civilisation in 40 years there's really no point. I need regular medical care to live.

[rhoenix]

Actually, it would be my opinion that large, sprawling cities wouldn't work anywhere near as well after global oil is nearly or completely depleted, though smaller, self-sufficient towns would likely thrive.

One reason I could see this being falsified is if a large and efficient mass-transit system that's country- or continent-wide is setup and utilized before that happens.

[SirNitram]

Actually, it would be my opinion that large, sprawling cities wouldn't work anywhere near as well after global oil is nearly or completely depleted, though smaller, self-sufficient towns would likely thrive.

One reason I could see this being falsified is if a large and efficient mass-transit system that's country- or continent-wide is setup and utilized before that happens.

You're high, aren't you? Don't post when you're fucking high.

Cities, for those who've never been in a city, are places where you can live your life without a car, and in some cases, without mass transit. You can, in fact, walk everywhere.

Suburbs and other rural communities only became viable in their present state after rail and automobiles became availiable. Why? Because, surprise surprise, you need a car or a well organized rail system to live in them and do everything.

The idea that a crash of oil and oil-based technologies will destroy cities is either apocalyptic idiocy or rural wishful-thinking.

[Howedar]

That's... an odd perspective. How exactly are the cities getting all of their resource needs (water and food, for starters) supplied to them? By walking everywhere?

[SirNitram]

That's... an odd perspective. How exactly are the cities getting all of their resource needs (water and food, for starters) supplied to them? By walking everywhere?

Did you know cities existed long before oil was a source of power? Whereas Suburbs... didn't? And much of the rurals of North America... Didn't?

It's called history. If you can't figure out how these things were done then, let alone now when we have new options, I really can't help you.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well Renfrew generates it's own electricity with a dam in town and a possible future wind turbine. But there's no rail head here just a line through town. There's plenty of farm land in the area and in the Ottawa Valley. So we may be able to feed ourselves but I'm curious as to how we are to move that food around. I plan to buy a hobby farm in the near future and grow a large portion of our own vegtables and raise some of our own meat but if I'm going to be cut off from civilisation in 40 years there's really no point. I need regular medical care to live.

If there's a rail-line through town (it doesn't need to be a railhead, you can add tracks very easily) and it's only 45 minutes by car from Ottawa, there's absolutely no question that stringing cantery and running A couple of these beauties into downtown Ottawa every day could actually cause your town to grow. Most suburbs will die off, as they're designed for cars, and people will need to move elsewhere as they can no longer use cars.

The natural place for them to move is to cluster along the railroad tracks, where they can easily hop onto an electric heavy rail commuter service like that, built along the existing freight rail lines. This means that any location within a two-hour commute of an existing major city on a direct heavy rail line will probably see population growth as people cluster there to adjust to the new realities of the situation.

Another possibility is the fact that as car use plummets, it will be very easy to tear up some lanes of freeways and replace them with electrified heavy rail commuter operations. Freeways in urban areas will probably be universally reduced to two lanes at most which are filled with buses and LPG/electric vehicles carrying carpoolers for rush hour; the remaining lanes will be replaced with heavy rail interurbans, or light rail, or subway tracks running surface level. Greenways, old rail-trails, and other open spaces leading into urban centres will probably also see track laid on them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In general, funding rail transportation upgrades and improvements is a top priority everywhere, both on a commuter and long-distance basis, as airplane travel will be as infeasable as cars.

It's possible that for the average person, long-distance travel over anything more than a couple of days will simply be impossible. Traveling coast to coast will mean a standard-speed (as the economy will not support vast long-distance high speed lines) rail trip across the country. Imagine electric trains running at 110mph from NYC to Harrisburg, then slow speed (50 - 80mph) from Harrisburg to Cleveland, and 110mph again from Cleveland to Kansas City via Chicago (the target speed of upgrades for the Midwestern Regional Rail Initiative on those lines). Then 90mph down the old Santa Fe to Los Angeles. Slowing to a crawl over Raton Pass, of course, but you can't do much about that.

The fastest trip would probably be around 48 hours, two nights and two nights, either leaving in the evening in NYC and arriving in evening in LA, or leaving in the morning in NYC and arriving in the morning in LA. That will, of course, completely change how people travel for good. OTOH, you'll have sleeping compartments, full service diners, and shower access, if you're willing to pay enough money, so it won't be that bad. From DC they could probably run the old National service out to Kansas City and interchange with the BNSF LA main there, which might shave a considerable number of hours off that trip, for that matter. The train could either run direct out of NYC or you could transfer from an Acela at DC Union Station.

[SirNitram]

Power generation is the real issue. I can name, off the top of my head, a method to generate plenty on the coastline, with the main pollutants being fresh water and fish, not the most harmful by-products of industry ever. If you can get enough electricity running, it can become economical to rip up the old, beat up lines and lay down high-speed track. The real issue with high speed track in America is that someone had the brilliant idea to sell the lines and no one's done necessary maintenence on them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Power generation is the real issue. I can name, off the top of my head, a method to generate plenty on the coastline, with the main pollutants being fresh water and fish, not the most harmful by-products of industry ever. If you can get enough electricity running, it can become economical to rip up the old, beat up lines and lay down high-speed track. The real issue with high speed track in America is that someone had the brilliant idea to sell the lines and no one's done necessary maintenence on them.

High-speed rail is horrendously non-economical for all but the densest routes. These are the routes on which service will range from 110mph to full maximum service TGV speeds (220mph)--there are a couple others in the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative which are not shown there, but that's it.

The maximum speed for almost services in the country will certainly be around 110mph, which is high as trains can generally reach without completely tearing up the track without lots of specialized construction and maintenance. 90mph will be common on most of the long stretches without lots of passenger trains running on them. And of course some areas are so mountainous the trains will be traveling 25mph for a while at most.

Furthermore, high-speed lines cannot accomadate freight--the freight trains weigh to much. They'd destroy the fineness of the track and make high speed running impossible. Well, guess what? All of these lines will need to accomadate freight as well, as truck deliveries of goods will no longer be possible.

Electricity isn't a huge problem. We can just add clean-coal powerplants as an emergency temporary measure (most electricity is NOT generated by oil, so we'll lose almost no generating capacity at all after peak oil) and then implement nuclear energy and water-based power (tidal, height differential, etc) over a longer period of time.

But, to be quite blunt, travel across the country in less than 40 - 44 hours will be out of the reach of 90% of the population, the remaining 10% being those who can pay thousands and thousands of dollars for even a coach seat on one of the rare flight services available operating on presumably a bio-diesel derivative. Right now on Amtrak you can go transcontinental by sleeper, two people, one way, for as little as $350.00 per person, with all meals included (eight of 'em) and access to a shower, if you buy the tickets a month in advance or so during the off-season. They also give you free coffee, pastries, champagne, and afternoon wine tasting. It's not a bad deal.

With government subsidies the same as the airlines get now and the reduced cost of electric power viz. oil, you could probably go round-trip for $600.00, or its equivalent adjusted for inflation. But you'll spend basically two days and two nights traveling each way.

It's just a fact of how things will play out in the transportation industry.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For delivery of goods inside of cities, I suspect we'll see a revival of narrow-gauge cargo subways, like the famous 2-ft gauge Chicago Tunnel Company.

[SirNitram]

Ah, I see the disconnect. As a user of the rail lines, 90mph is high speed; it's well above the Acela's average speed, for example.

Clean-coal is a stopgap, however, not a permenant solution. There may be piles of the stuff along the Appalachians, but the rosey estimates of hundreds of years of use are based off current consumption; which will balloon as oil has to be replaced. Alternate forms of power must be ushered in.

Of course, all this ignores the production of widespread electric cars and other forms of transport, because while there's some of the great minds on the planet plugging away at electrical cars, it'll be a tossup whether they can put together a consumer version in time.

[Aaron]

My concern about electric cars is how well they will operate in Canada. You did show me a link on LA for one that was tested in the Arctic. So I assume they have solved the problem that plagued the EV-1 of severely reduced battery life in the cold. All I need is one that can get me from Renfrew to Ottawa and back on a charge anyways. So 200 km round trip. 250 km with fudge factor.

[SirNitram]

My concern about electric cars is how well they will operate in Canada. You did show me a link on LA for one that was tested in the Arctic. So I assume they have solved the problem that plagued the EV-1 of severely reduced battery life in the cold. All I need is one that can get me from Renfrew to Ottawa and back on a charge anyways. So 200 km round trip. 250 km with fudge factor.

The Roadster's(The one I showed you) design has about 200 miles per full charge; call it 320 km. Then again, that's a luxury car with the luxury car pricetag. It all depends on them being able to make a consumer model.

Or me earning a few million dollars and buying some for folks who need 'em.

Yanno, whichever happens first.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, all this ignores the production of widespread electric cars and other forms of transport, because while there's some of the great minds on the planet plugging away at electrical cars, it'll be a tossup whether they can put together a consumer version in time.

Electric cars will be available, but I don't think they'll have the performance necessary for long-distance travel anytime. To compete with even this long-distance rail, they would need to have ranges of 800 - 900 miles before recharging (which could not take more than around ten hours), which may simply be impossible for a long time to come.

In commuter situations, they will be an alternative to mass transit, but mass transit will have a head start, and with the economic disruptions caused by this, purchasing any kind of car, even a cheap little electric commuter car, may be beyond the livelihoods of the average individual.

[rhoenix]

Actually, it would be my opinion that large, sprawling cities wouldn't work anywhere near as well after global oil is nearly or completely depleted, though smaller, self-sufficient towns would likely thrive.

One reason I could see this being falsified is if a large and efficient mass-transit system that's country- or continent-wide is setup and utilized before that happens.

You're high, aren't you?

No. Just somewhat sleep deprived.

Don't post when you're fucking high.

I'll try.

Cities, for those who've never been in a city, are places where you can live your life without a car, and in some cases, without mass transit. You can, in fact, walk everywhere.

In cities with properly-designed mass-transit and planning, yes. Here in Sacramento, where I've lived most of my life, the blur between city and suburb here nearly necessitates the use of a car. I would like to live in a city as you describe, but I don't believe it's in this city.

Suburbs and other rural communities only became viable in their present state after rail and automobiles became availiable. Why? Because, surprise surprise, you need a car or a well organized rail system to live in them and do everything.

I now see how the misunderstanding occurred - due to me being non-specific regarding "large, sprawling city" and "suburban sprawl" during my previous post. My apologies for that.

The idea that a crash of oil and oil-based technologies will destroy cities is either apocalyptic idiocy or rural wishful-thinking.

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that the crash of oil would "destroy cities." I simply stated they wouldn't work nearly as well, due to the dependence on automobiles.

I also supplied the caveat that my original statement might be falsified with a proper mass-transit system in place.

[SirNitram]

Cities, for those who've never been in a city, are places where you can live your life without a car, and in some cases, without mass transit. You can, in fact, walk everywhere.

In cities with properly-designed mass-transit and planning, yes. Here in Sacramento, where I've lived most of my life, the blur between city and suburb here nearly necessitates the use of a car. I would like to live in a city as you describe, but I don't believe it's in this city.

You must be high. I specifically pointed out most cities don't need the mass transit(Though it's often there, save in the US). Then you come back and mention it. If your city is stupidly built, then yes, there will be consequences.

Suburbs and other rural communities only became viable in their present state after rail and automobiles became availiable. Why? Because, surprise surprise, you need a car or a well organized rail system to live in them and do everything.

I now see how the misunderstanding occurred - due to me being non-specific regarding "large, sprawling city" and "suburban sprawl" during my previous post. My apologies for that.

Suburban sprawl is doomed unless electric cars take off.

The idea that a crash of oil and oil-based technologies will destroy cities is either apocalyptic idiocy or rural wishful-thinking.

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never stated that the crash of oil would "destroy cities." I simply stated they wouldn't work nearly as well, due to the dependence on automobiles.

I also supplied the caveat that my original statement might be falsified with a proper mass-transit system in place.

Because you've apparently been in one city, which is more suburban sprawl than city. Again, I point out my above explanation. Major cities got along quite well without cars; and I can't beleive someone brought up running water to it. See, two thousand years ago, some guys came up with a way to solve that, they were called the ROmans...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Suburban sprawl is doomed unless electric cars take off.

Well, it's more proper to say that it will change in nature to extremely high-density developments radiating outwards like the spokes of a wheel along the mass transit corridors servicing that city out to the distance of a practical morning commute along those lines.

Since most houses these days are very cheaply built, there's the fascinating prospect that it will be cheaper to just abandon them than recycle the materials inside of them. That means there could be endless square miles of entirely abandoned housing developments once things get in swing. Most people will be unable to sell their property at all, and will be forced probably to move into high-density apartments and condos clustered around the stops on the commuter lines.

Any negative effects from global warming will just accelerate this process. Though in that case it may become ultimately valuable enough to reclaim most suburbs for farming in regions where it will still be possible to do so.

[rhoenix]

I specifically pointed out most cities don't need the mass transit(Though it's often there, save in the US).

Which is my point. Though the cities you are vagely referring to apparently don't need mass transit, the "large and sprawling" cities would, due to poor city design.

I will concede that Sacramento specifically is beginning to work on a large mass-transit rail system, making this debate a moot point at least for my city, when it happens to be completed.

Then you come back and mention it. If your city is stupidly built, then yes, there will be consequences.

Though I did not communicate this clearly, this was my intended point earlier. Cities that are not properly planned will likely be hit harder by the scenario posited in the OP.

Because you've apparently been in one city, which is more suburban sprawl than city. Again, I point out my above explanation. Major cities got along quite well without cars; and I can't beleive someone brought up running water to it. See, two thousand years ago, some guys came up with a way to solve that, they were called the ROmans...

Admittedly, my perspective is based on the cities (note the plural) within the United States and Canada that I've visited. Based on the point above, regarding aqueducts, most cities in Europe and other places that arose before cars will likely be relatively unscathed.

However, the cities here that were not designed in that fashion will likely have issues.

So, with the points you've raised, I'll revise my original point from:

Actually, it would be my opinion that large, sprawling cities wouldn't work anywhere near as well after global oil is nearly or completely depleted, though smaller, self-sufficient towns would likely thrive.

to:

Actually, it would be my opinion that large, sprawling cities that arose after the automobile was invented and established and were not planned in advance to account for mass transit wouldn't work anywhere near as well after global oil is nearly or completely depleted.

[Darth Wong]

It's not a matter of on/off existence/nonexistence. It's a matter of economics. The end of cheap oil will mean that the sprawling suburb and the bedroom community 1 hour out of town will become much less economically viable. Those who have to work in the city will move closer to the city. Those who work on the farm will live on the farm. The community of people who all work far away from where they're living will see a crash in property values as people realize that it costs a fortune to live there thanks to sharply increased commuting costs.

This equation will hold regardless of whether electric cars take off. Even if it happens as per every electric car fan's wet dreams, electrical bills will simply go through the roof as demand skyrockets. It will still cost a lot more money to commute long distances every day, even if all the technical limitations of electric cars are solved.

[SirNitram]

This equation will hold regardless of whether electric cars take off. Even if it happens as per every electric car fan's wet dreams, electrical bills will simply go through the roof as demand skyrockets. It will still cost a lot more money to commute long distances every day, even if all the technical limitations of electric cars are solved.

Pretty much. The only possible thing that could prevent that is a breakthrough of net-gain fusion that's cheap and accepted by the public.

[RedImperator]

Well, it's more proper to say that it will change in nature to extremely high-density developments radiating outwards like the spokes of a wheel along the mass transit corridors servicing that city out to the distance of a practical morning commute along those lines.

Since most houses these days are very cheaply built, there's the fascinating prospect that it will be cheaper to just abandon them than recycle the materials inside of them. That means there could be endless square miles of entirely abandoned housing developments once things get in swing. Most people will be unable to sell their property at all, and will be forced probably to move into high-density apartments and condos clustered around the stops on the commuter lines.

Of course, since presumably demand in these communities will be rising sharply at the same time economic disruptions will be throwing people into poverty, a great many present-day exurbanites may find themselves unable to afford to live in their McMansions and unable to afford to buy or rent an apartment near a train station. I suspect if Peak Oil plays out badly enough, we're going to see the return of the Hooverville.

[TrailerParkJawa]

My friend and I had a conversation about this at dinner tonight. People move out to the suburbs to get more house for their money, a lawn (or at least some green space), and often better schools. Going farther out from the core job areas can be the difference between being able to afford housing or not.

When gas prices really begin to get too expensive we are probably going to see prices in these areas come down as nobody can afford the commute. Tech workers might be able to mitigate the costs by telecommuting sometimes but for a lot of IT job telecommuting is overrateed.

I've actually wondered if it might be better to buy a condo in the downtown area of San Jose over the long run even if right now downtown San Jose doesnt have much to offer.

[Howedar]

That's... an odd perspective. How exactly are the cities getting all of their resource needs (water and food, for starters) supplied to them? By walking everywhere?

Did you know cities existed long before oil was a source of power? Whereas Suburbs... didn't? And much of the rurals of North America... Didn't?

It's called history. If you can't figure out how these things were done then, let alone now when we have new options, I really can't help you.

I had a response for all of this, but I really can't take the time to get embroiled in such a discussion. Take that as victory if you choose.