Morning Ed: Transportation {2017.01.03.T}

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

23 Responses

  1. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    There are only about 1,200-1,300 motor vehicle accident victims per year who donate their organs, so it’s still a net improvement by far, even if each donor saves several lives, and even if we ignore non-fatal injuries.

    Data here. Can’t link directly, but if you select “Donors” from the drop-down box and then click on the “Deceased Donors by Circumstance of Death” link, it should give you the table.Report

  2. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    According to the update linked from the second link on the “caffeine DUI” story, it sounds like they thought, based on his erratic driving, that he was under the influence of something else not detected by the tests they ran. Since they had no way of proving this, they’ve dropped the charges.Report

  3. Avatar Damon says:

    Of course it’s expected the shortage will get worse. It’s not a market system. Frankly, it’s one reason why I’m not an organ donor. You want a piece of me, you damn well better PAY me.Report

  4. Avatar Kolohe says:

    I don’t understand why the plan prioritizes getting on the moon over the orbital and Lagrange platforms. Are there enough elemental resources on the moon to make it worth it going up and down that gravity well, even with it being significantly shallower?Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordan in reply to Kolohe says:

      That is the thinking. Even if the moon did not have those resources when it formed, it’s endured enough meteor strikes that there should be plenty of resources near the surface.Report

    • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Kolohe says:

      Assorted speculative reasons: (1) One-sixth g is sufficient to avoid the health problems we are discovering that are associated with long-term microgravity environments. (2) Ability to use Heinlein’s various propulsion systems like electromagnetic catapults and nuclear rockets to launch from the moon. (3) Much easier to protect from coronal mass ejections than Lagrange platforms.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Makes sense, but I would imagine that all the large scale non-surface habitats would rotate to recreate earth’s g, no?Report

        • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Kolohe says:

          When the structures reach that scale — a rotating object big enough to hold thousands of people — the advantages of sourcing the mass on the moon should really come into play: 2.4 kps vs 11.2 kps escape velocity, no pesky atmosphere. I pick that size structure because the article’s goal is to have a facility suitable for building a starship of some sort.

          If I were going to pick out a weakness in the whole chain, I’d pick on the “Thus, two hundred years hence, even with unforeseen catastrophes and more economic and geopolitical setbacks and strife, we can still bet on the tenacity and ingenuity of our human species…” line. In practice, this is a bet on 200 more years of essentially linear progress, plus noise — no global catastrophes allowed. Granted, I’m a pessimist who believes that the big engineering question in 2050 won’t be “How’s that lunar colony doing?”, it will be “How are we going to keep the lights on without baking the planet?” Or to borrow a thought from Kim, if we’re busy resettling 50M Gulf Coast folks, and fighting off hundreds of millions of climate refugees, the space program beyond various earth orbits isn’t in the budget.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Radiation protection is a big one. Resources is a second one, but being able to pile a foot of dirt on top of your living quarters is the real seller.Report

        • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Morat20 says:

          Or, as you build your L4/L5 habitat, being able to move large amounts of shielding material from a low gravity source to pack around your worker & crew quarters, so they aren’t puking up blood inside of a month.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    After decades of being talked about and being in the works, NYC finally managed to open the 2nd Avenue Subway. Matt Y writes about why it is problematic for it to be so expensive to make:

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I’m not so sure about Ygleasias’ point about weak unions leading to more ineffective building efforts. Unions were extraordinarily strong in the United Kingdom from the Atlee administration to the Thatcher administration and many historians and economists believe that’s a big reason why British industries failed to update the technology they use. The older and more inefficient technology meant more jobs and British unions wanted more people working than less people working. Stronger unions in the United States might end up working like Yglesias thinks they will or they might end up being like British labor unions during the mid-20th century.

      He is right that the United States is really bad at building infrastructure in a cost effective manner, especially transit infrastructure. I think it has a lot more to do with politics than anything else. The American political system gives the opponents of infrastructure any easier way to gum up the works than other countries. When Paris or Berlin wants a new subway line, the local or national government can just vote on an issue. In the United States, their usually needs to be a ballot initiative approved by the electorate rather than a vote in the city council or state legislature. Even if the ballot initiative passes, opponents can go to the courts and try to prevent the project because of environmental impact or some other nonsense. The way public contracts are done also increases costs and delays building.Report

    • Avatar PD Shaw in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Matt goes way out of his way to argue that the higher wages charged by unions in public works projects are really the fault of low unionization rates in the private sector. As the article he links too indicates, union wages & benefits are higher in both the public and private sector than their nonunion counterparts. It’s either worth it or not.Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    Some New Yorker’s fear that the 2nd Avenue Subway is going to destroy one of the last bastions of relatively affordable rent in NYC.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/nyregion/second-avenue-subway-rent-worries.html?_r=0

    This is fair enough. I used to live at 66 and 1st and it was a long haul to the nearest Subway. This did make the location attractive to some young people or people with relatively modest incomes because rents tended to be cheaper and new development not as crazy.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      By NYC, I assume you mean Manhattan below 125th…Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy says:

        @kazzy

        There are parts of Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn that are relatively affordable too but those areas are also far from public transit. Washington Heights and Inwood have been getting more expensive because more and more people are moving to those areas in search of cheaper rents and gentrification is slowly setting in.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I’m struggling to understand your point then.

          “The 2nd Avenue Subway will drive up rents in the neighborhoods in runs through!”
          “There are other neighborhoods that remain affordable.”
          “They’re all really far from public transportation!”

          It seems like what you want is a really convenient neighborhood with low rents. That simply isn’t reasonable.

          It’s also just annoying to refer to NYC and not include the outer boroughs. They are as much a part of the city as Manhattan is. And many of those areas remain “bastions of relatively affordable rent”.Report

  7. Avatar Kolohe says:

    I think you need your snake people widget back for that RV story.Report

  8. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Re: Metro Naming

    “The policy also precludes business with firms that have “a history of fraudulent, unethical or prejudicial behavior.””

    So Trump is out…?

    “Sorry, Mr. President… we can’t name the train terminal after you… because, ya know, you’re an unethical fraud with a history of discrimination.” U-S-A! U-S-A!Report

  9. Avatar Marchmaine says:

    Bleg: In the spirit of 2017 and the Trump presidency, we’re making an effort to listen to Smug Liberals and are venturing forth from the fever swamp to better understand how the other zip-codes live by planning a weekend in NYC at the end of January.

    Hey, we’re doing our part to repair the rift in our political fabric; we’re even taking the Acela into Penn Station (but my goal is to not taxi/uber hither and yon, if possible).

    So, here’s your opportunity to help a country mouse do NYC the right way.

    The only thing that we’ve got lined up is the Opera at the Met on Friday night… so that and Penn Station are the vectors we’re working in.

    Any ideas on where to stay, eat, things to do and/or shows to see would be much obliged.

    Not looking for cheapest, looking for best quality for best value… you know, not the tourist traps, but the good stuff that’s actually worth the NYC prices. We’ve steeled ourselves to give our pure, honestly earned rural dollars to city folk… we’re just asking for fair value in return.Report

  10. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I’ve been asleep. Did Garland get confirmed today?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *