How interstates gutted American cities article

[Ned Weasel]

Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.

Item number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.

Item number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.

There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.

Connecting the world's energy grid would go a long way toward reducing the problem, but I know that's easier said than done.

There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.

No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.

The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.

I'm not entirely convinced that we should give up on Radburn-style planning.  Sidewalk/pedestrian path connectivity is truly important, but I'm not convinced that streets always need to cut through.  The landscape-oriented approach central to places like Radburn and Lafayette Park provides a public realm of exceptional quality, although fundamentally different from the New Urbanist ideal, and the pedestrian paths separated from car traffic can be peaceful settings even when higher residential densities are involved.  Part of the problem is that it's not easy to plan places like this on a large scale when you're not starting from an undeveloped landscape--or starting from scratch on a previously developed landscape, and tabula rasa planning has such a bad history that it's questionable whether it should even be considered as a viable option.

Of course, New Urbanism talks about how the modernist hierarchy of streets leads to congestion when everyone has to converge onto the collector street from the local streets, but is the old-fashioned street grid really the only solution?  I think this is more of an open-ended question rather than an easy answer.

As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.

I would say, at the very least, retail should not be treated as an afterthought.

Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.

Interesting observation.  Personally, I have a hard time getting into SimCity because it doesn't treat the details of urban development in a way that satisfies me.

[kalvado]

There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.

There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.

No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.

The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.


As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.

Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.

Single factor optimization which doesn't take into account complexity of the world. Such discussion is a very good try for elementary school level, though; and could even get a C,  maybe B- on a good day, in middle school.

[kalvado]

I would say, at the very least, retail should not be treated as an afterthought.

Retail is evolving more than most of urban development.
Mom and pop store gave way to Sears, with Walmart coming next - and likely failing as well in face of Amazon.
I am really not sure what is coming next, but I suspect old-style retail revenue will continue dropping.. So it is good idea to reserve more room for retail, as it can be later converted to parks...

I'm not entirely convinced that we should give up on Radburn-style planning.  Sidewalk/pedestrian path connectivity is truly important, but I'm not convinced that streets always need to cut through.  The landscape-oriented approach central to places like Radburn and Lafayette Park provides a public realm of exceptional quality, although fundamentally different from the New Urbanist ideal, and the pedestrian paths separated from car traffic can be peaceful settings even when higher residential densities are involved.  Part of the problem is that it's not easy to plan places like this on a large scale when you're not starting from an undeveloped landscape--or starting from scratch on a previously developed landscape, and tabula rasa planning has such a bad history that it's questionable whether it should even be considered as a viable option.

I wouldn't be surprised if opinion on proper grid depends on person location
Duke87's location is Queens - and as far as I understand, that is relatively flat unchallenging area with well defined shorelines and little hills.
Honestly speaking, I expected someone from relatively flat Kansas to be more conductive to those ideas...
Hill or river/creek valley or depression can easily make area one-way walkable, and connections between local built up areas impractical even on small scale... 

[Duke87]

Single factor optimization which doesn't take into account complexity of the world. Such discussion is a very good try for elementary school level, though; and could even get a C,  maybe B- on a good day, in middle school.

Thank you for grading my essay. I was concerned I wasn't going to pass this class.

And yes, obviously, there are reasons that dead end streets and single use zoning exist - the humans that live on/in them have deemed them aesthetically appealing, like that no one will ever pass down their street unless they live on it or know someone who does because it makes things quieter/makes them feel safer, etc. Things like better connected streets do, admittedly, optimize travel distance at the expense of these other qualities that some people seek. I wouldn't dismiss that as "single factor optimization", though. Anyone who wants to live on a cul-de-sac is perfectly welcome to move into one of the many that already exist. But that doesn't mean we should keep building more of them, since they are highly inefficient.

Also, I do not reasonably expect that every new neighborhood is going to be built exactly as I prescribed, since I am not the ruler of the world. I do, however, state that as what I believe to be the ideal circumstance, knowing that what actually happens in practice will be some compromise between that and what others believe to be the ideal circumstance. That is, after all, how planning works.

[kalvado]

And yes, obviously, there are reasons that dead end streets and single use zoning exist - the humans that live on/in them have deemed them aesthetically appealing, like that no one will ever pass down their street unless they live on it or know someone who does because it makes things quieter/makes them feel safer, etc. Things like better connected streets do, admittedly, optimize travel distance at the expense of these other qualities that some people seek. I wouldn't dismiss that as "single factor optimization", though. Anyone who wants to live on a cul-de-sac is perfectly welcome to move into one of the many that already exist. But that doesn't mean we should keep building more of them, since they are highly inefficient.

OK, to improve your grade - would you please analyze advantages and disadvantages of different transportation networks for emergencies: riot control will be eventually very important in such artificially designed neighborhoods; quarantine/ pathogen propagation control may follow; shock wave from nuclear blast or good ol' firestorm? Or just prevailing and storm winds propagation within the city?

City geometry has to accommodate much more  than simple transportation efficiency in everyday operations. Optimal degree of connectivity may vary for different approaches.
And we didn't touch any economic factors yet, which is even bigger can of worms.

[Duke87]

If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.

And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.

[kalvado]

If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.

And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.

If you live in the world, where emergency preparedness is limited to once a year fire drill, you are really happy person.
I, for one, always remember that Interstates are actually National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. And you're probably too young to remember how transportation network was put into emergency mode on 9/11/2001...

[kkt]

A better question might be whether to discuss the nature of free speech in a democracy for those who do not own the media vs. hijacking a thread and falling on deaf ears anyway.

[MisterSG1]

If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.

And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.

If you live in the world, where emergency preparedness is limited to once a year fire drill, you are really happy person.
I, for one, always remember that Interstates are actually National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. And you're probably too young to remember how transportation network was put into emergency mode on 9/11/2001...

Get real, you know as well as I do that they used the excuse of National Defense in order to build the IHS, it's the only way the Feds could do it constitutionally, if such a network was in the interests of National Defense.

[MisterSG1]

A better question might be, "How do you keep rioters off the transportation network?" (Thinking about those idiotic Thug Lives Matter protestors blocking freeways in major cities.

Get the police who are too much of cowards to force them off the road, if they do not leave, start firing at them, look, you can protest all you want, but as soon as you start disrupting the economy by such measures of blocking a freeway, that's an act of war in my opinion. Call me extreme but that's how I feel. I'm sure the silent majority agrees with me.

[NE2]

MisterSG1: it's a horrible idea to start shooting hep kittens. All the hep cat lovers will take over the media and prevent you from taking out the trash. I definitely agree with you that hep cat lives don't matter at all, but too many otherwise good people believe that they do and will turn against any upstanding white folks who try to protect their ways of life.

[MisterSG1]

MisterSG1: it's a horrible idea to start shooting hep kittens. All the hep cat lovers will take over the media and prevent you from taking out the trash. I definitely agree with you that hep cat lives don't matter at all, but too many otherwise good people believe that they do and will turn against any upstanding white folks who try to protect their ways of life.

Ok, I may have went too far in saying that lethal force should be used, but what I was saying should happen is that the cops shouldn't put up with it and they should clear the road immediately. A bunch of LRADs will have them running for the hills.

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

[Pete from Boston]

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist.  What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?

[MisterSG1]

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist.  What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?

What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.

As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.

In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.

When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.

[NE2]

citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word.

You are a Repub, a necessary prerequisite for master racedom.

[Sykotyk]

Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve.  Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara.  Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive.

Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.

1. We already figured that out with the powerplants we have now. You build transmission lines or co-op the ones already existing. When you're moving megawatts of power, big lines aren't that expensive based on the revenue generated.

2. That already happens most places. There will be other power, such as hydro, nuclear, some coal and gas plants.

Item number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.

Don't the middle east countries already enjoy bargaining power over other countries due to oil? What difference if that influence is shifted to northern Africa from the middle east?

Item number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.

If our advancements in technology suffice, instead of giant monolithic batteries dotting the landscape, it will simply be each house or business will house their own, for use, battery that charges during daylight hours to run services as needed. It will also give people a better understanding of what their homes electrical usage actually entails and where to cut out the waste when it means possibly blipping out of power late in the night.

There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.

There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.

There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.

No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.

The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.


As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.

Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.
[/quote]

[kalvado]

1. We already figured that out with the powerplants we have now. You build transmission lines or co-op the ones already existing. When you're moving megawatts of power, big lines aren't that expensive based on the revenue generated.

Which much easier to say than actually do. You hit some funny limits, like speed of light being too slow. Things may be doable, but complexity would be comparable to going from rural roads with at-grade crossings, to 6-level interstate interchanges.
Nome batteries are probably a pipe dream. Especially when ramping things up to 10's millions pieces Li is not going to work; sulfur may be interesting - but technology is really in early stages.

[Bruce]

I'd use rioters disrupting surface traffic to advocate for more grade-separated transit systems.

When Westlake Park in Downtown Seattle was used by Occupy Seattle in 2011, the whole area had to be cordoned off by police and generally messed traffic up a bit. The only thing left relatively unchanged was the bus tunnel (which also serves light rail), which simply shut down the station at Westlake Park and had non-stop service through there. Other buses on the surface were caught in terrible traffic, or were unable to move at all because of the lack of good trolleybus wire in downtown.

[Pete from Boston]

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist.  What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?

What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.

As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.

In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.

When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.

You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.

(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada?  The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church.  Exceedingly polite bunch.)

OK, let's say you're not being racist.  Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race.  I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.

[MisterSG1]

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist.  What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?

What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.

As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.

In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.

When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.

You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.

(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada?  The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church.  Exceedingly polite bunch.)

OK, let's say you're not being racist.  Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race.  I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.

The problem here is that you are assuming the person I cancelled the ride on was Black. Fact was, if race is important, he was an asian but he sort of looked like a thug, with a bandana on. That is the trouble I do not need, and if my safety feels threatened, no matter if the passenger is white, black, or whatever, I should have the right to cancel a ride.

If you are saying that taxi drivers should be charged with hate crimes, I'm not going to say discrimination is good. The point I'm getting at, is that these taxi drivers, some who are BLACK THEMSELVES from AFRICAN COUNTRIES start to avoid black passengers because of problems they have had with black passengers in the past. The man who drives the yellow cab in NYC is not going to be allowed to have Mr. Glock next to him in the front seat, but yet if the person he picks up is a criminal and wants to carry Mr. Glock, well there's no stopping him. The yellow cabbie has absolutely no way to defend himself if he's going to be robbed, and statistically, but unfortunately these kinds of homicides against taxi drivers happen with black men as the perpetrators, this is why the cabbies discriminate, because they don't want to be in a dangerous situation themselves.

As for hippies....oh boy, I'm surprised you see them as the good guys. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about hippies, but let's just summarize it simply, in the Summer of 1969, the greatest generation who fought in World War II, their achievements put a man on the moon that summer, but what did the hippies do....oh yeah, they got high and drunk in Woodstock. When these hippies couldn't get real jobs, they simply stayed in college forever until they could become the "lunatic professors" we see today that these universities are notorious for.

[NE2]

I get the feeling that Reagan is looking up from his current sweltering abode and nodding in approval of a couple of posts in this thread.

[kkt]

The Greatest Generation (TM) got to defend liberty and justice against the enemies of humanity!

All the hippy generation got to defend was an odious corrupt regime that the Greatest Generation should never have made an alliance with.

Are we ready to lock this thread yet?

[Pete from Boston]

Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.

Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist.  What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?

What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.

As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.

In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.

When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.

You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.

(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada?  The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church.  Exceedingly polite bunch.)

OK, let's say you're not being racist.  Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race.  I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.

The problem here is that you are assuming the person I cancelled the ride on was Black. Fact was, if race is important, he was an asian but he sort of looked like a thug, with a bandana on. That is the trouble I do not need, and if my safety feels threatened, no matter if the passenger is white, black, or whatever, I should have the right to cancel a ride.

If you are saying that taxi drivers should be charged with hate crimes, I'm not going to say discrimination is good. The point I'm getting at, is that these taxi drivers, some who are BLACK THEMSELVES from AFRICAN COUNTRIES start to avoid black passengers because of problems they have had with black passengers in the past. The man who drives the yellow cab in NYC is not going to be allowed to have Mr. Glock next to him in the front seat, but yet if the person he picks up is a criminal and wants to carry Mr. Glock, well there's no stopping him. The yellow cabbie has absolutely no way to defend himself if he's going to be robbed, and statistically, but unfortunately these kinds of homicides against taxi drivers happen with black men as the perpetrators, this is why the cabbies discriminate, because they don't want to be in a dangerous situation themselves.

As for hippies....oh boy, I'm surprised you see them as the good guys. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about hippies, but let's just summarize it simply, in the Summer of 1969, the greatest generation who fought in World War II, their achievements put a man on the moon that summer, but what did the hippies do....oh yeah, they got high and drunk in Woodstock. When these hippies couldn't get real jobs, they simply stayed in college forever until they could become the "lunatic professors" we see today that these universities are notorious for.

You went on at length about the poor behavior of black people. 

I referred to discrimination in business on the basis of race, based upon your going on at length about the undesirability of picking up black customers.  In the United States, this is a serious violation of federal law, not simply a "hate crime."

The "hippies" I'm talking about are simply old liberal-leaning retirees that listen to folk music and go bird-watching.  Again, we're talking about whether a reasonable person should expect disruptive behavior from these polite 70-somethings in one's car, not most of what you described.