A Plan for Conservation and Driving Down Gas Prices

[Montagnard]

Three parts:

First, go to a 4 day work week…consisting of 10 hour work days. Still a 40 hour work and business week.

Second, close all business at 8 pm. Open at 6 am.

Third, no internal combustion engines allowed to operate (no driving) on Sunday, exception being emergency vehicles.

Think how much gas would be saved it the work force did not have to drive to work one day a week.

[Ian David]

1. I think Jews and 7th Day Adventists would object to the Sunday rule n/t

[Montagnard]

6. If we didnt want to shut down for one day

then place a surtax on all activity for a day during the three day weekend.

[ComerPerro]

2. Joy! You mean, everyone gets to go to work at the same time?

That will suck, suck, suck, suck, suck, suck, suck.

[Montagnard]

4. No...just like now, you could stagger that start of the work day

you would just do it 4 days aweek rather than 5.

[ComerPerro]

37. LOL, yeah, I was thinking 8-6, as in, same schedule for everyone

read it backwards. duh.

:hi:

[tulsakatz]

3. what about people who work on Sunday?

I work for a rental car company and our business is open 24/7.......

But I like the 4 day work week. I've done that before and the 3 day weekends are nice!!

[Montagnard]

5. It would not be open on Sunday, or Friday, or Saturday

whichever day is picked for all commerce to cease. At least commerce associated and predicated upon gasoline.

[tulsakatz]

39. it doesn't sound like a realistic plan to me..........

can you imagine the traffic jams if everyone went to work and came home at the same time?

That's one of the reasons why I like working weekends...........there is less traffic. And if I want to go shopping on my days off, there are fewer people there too!

And another thing.........what if someone wants to go to church on sunday and the church is too far to walk?

[Lib Grrrrl]

47. Yeah

Like me.
My church happens to be 13.5 miles from where I live. Because I happen to be a member of a not-very-common religion, Unitarian Universalism.

I'll be damned if I will end up being forced into going to church with a bunch of Pharisee so-called Christians who hate GLBT people like me.

[tulsakatz]

51. I wouldn't go to fundie church either!!

I've never been to a Unitarian church but, from what I've heard, it's a cool religion!

[Lib Grrrrl]

52. Yup

Actually, it is a pretty cool religion...which is why I converted over ten years ago.

Hey, it isn't like the Roman Catholics were doing much for me, spiritually.

[tulsakatz]

94. neither do most fundamentalist churches!

At least they never gave me any kind of spiritual guidance.

I grew up in the Baptist church but as soon as I got old enough to know better, I left and now belong to Religious Science.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. Kind of a goofy plan, honestly

How you would enforce all of that, I have no idea...but I don't think you'd find many people in favor of it....especially the no driving on Sunday part.

And a 4 day work week is fine in theory, but not everyone works a traditional work week. Some folks work three, some folks six, some folks every day....including the Sunday you don't want to permit anyone to drive. You won't hurt salaried workers much, but you'd probably end up dealing wage-earners or those forced to work two jobs to make ends meet into a tough situation.

You'll have to clarify the "no internal combustion engines" operating on Sunday. Does this also mean lawnmowers? farm equipment? private aircraft?

[Lib Grrrrl]

10. Totally!!

I'm wondering if this guy subscribes to his local newspaper? Does he get home delivery? does he get home delivery on Sunday?

How does he think he gets his sunday newspaper? Does he think Santa Claus brings it?

Guess who DOES?? My mom, for one. She delivers a newspaper route. Her route is in a rural area near where we live, and encompasses 70 miles of driving on the roads to deliver all those newspapers. she does it so we can keep our house. My dad died with no insurance, and left her with nothing but a huge mortgage...and a lot of debt.

You want to force us into losing our home? You wanna not get your Sunday newspaper delivered anymore?

[Montagnard]

16. My thoughts were just an opening

consider this, if the cost of transportation continues to increase and that cost must be reflected in the cost of the Sunday newspaper and wages do not increase to cover that increased cost, then I and others will be forced to discontinue the newspaper.

[Lib Grrrrl]

20. Your Thoughts Were Selfish and Narrow

taking into account only YOUR needs, YOUR situation, and YOUR ability to deal with the inconvenience. you gave ZERO thought to the inconvenience it would cause others who do not share your situation.

So don't try sandbagging it now. Admit your short-sightedness, your selfishness, and your failure to realize that not everyone's situation matches yours...and start thinking about other people.

[Montagnard]

25. Gosh....I thought this was a place for discussion

I didn't realize that it would touch a nerve ending. In the first place I am a country boy. Now, just to show you that I am open minded, please tell me what you would do for those working class that are now faced with draconian choices in face of increasing fuel prices. I really want to hear what you would do? Or, do we just pretend that there is nothing to see here, so we need to move along?

[Lib Grrrrl]

30. You Hit A Raw Nerve

whether you intended to or not, you did.

You failed to consider that not everyone has the ability to adjust their life, or their schedules - as you might.

Again...just how do you propose I get to go to my chosen house of worship on sundays if I cannot drive, and public transportation does not exist in my area? How do you propose I go 13.5 miles, one way...without driving?

[Montagnard]

34. I am going to be serious on that question

because I considered that scenerio...I mean these seriously, first you could start a congregation closer to your home, that would also have the benefit of strengthening the community. Or, there are other ways besides shanks mare or automobile.....being from Pennsylvania, I am sure you have seen the Amish. Or, there could be an exemption for religious travel, or as I stated earlier there could be a surtax on all activity for one day of the three day weekend. Or, better still, the religious services could be held on Saturday, or Friday....or Saturday or Friday could be the day where there is no usage of internal combustion engines.

The one thing that has been overlooked here, is that should we do something along the lines of my suggestion, it would make no difference. Any savings in consumption will be readily taken up by India and China.

The point of what I wrote was what are we going to do? Not that I expect anyone to come up with the answer, but maybe group consensus would reveal something.

[Lib Grrrrl]

48. Yeah...Real Good Answer

start a congregation closer to my home. Do you realize that I belong to a religion that encompasses perhaps 1/10 of one percent of the American population (Unitarian Universalist.) so we start a congregation close to my home...assuming we even find a place close to my home to have one...guess what?? Now it's too far for someone else in the congregation. Now, guess what? We don't HAVE a congregation anymore because there aren't enough of us. We aren't like Christians, who could have a church on every street corner, you know!

And I'm sure the Jews would appreciate making Saturday the day you couldn't drive....how are they to get to synagogue?

Likewise, I'm sure Muslims would appreciate making the no-driving day Friday...how are they to get to mosque?

As to the rest, I don't know if anyone will come up with THE ANSWER...but, clearly...if anyone does...that someone won't be YOU. There is far too much you fail to consider.

What would I do, you ask? See my posting regarding telecommuting.

Not everyone CAN telecommute. I understand this. But for those who CAN do their jobs from home, this should be mandatory that companies allow it. Those who cannot, then...realize the benefit in far less traffic on the roads for them to contend with...and with a far-lower demand for gasoline, presumably, the price at the pump would go down.
Furthermore, telecommuting would allow single moms to work from home, so that they would not have to spend all their earnings on frickin' day care! Telecommuting would cause far fewer cars on the road, so far less negative environmental impact from automobiles.

Another side benefit to telecommuting is that it would force employers into judging people based only on their skills, merits, abilities and experience...GLBT people like me would have less discrimination to worry about.

Meanwhile, we couple my idea of telecommuting with the idea advanced elsewhere in this thread about a slow conversion to biodiesel. Combine those two ideas with the idea of a four-day workweek for those who cannot telecommute.

No one answer is going to be right for everyone, obviously....but you can combine ideas...such as I have...and the cumulative effect would be enormous!

And with all that...there would be no need to restrict driving on any day. But perhaps you might restrict other forms of internal combustion engines on a given day, for example, lawn mowers. I'm sure with a three-day weekend, everyone could agree to not mow their grass on a specific one of those three days they are not working.

And if you have everyone working a four-day workweek...you could spread that week over say, a six day week...and people would have different offdays, thus further cutting down on the amount of traffic a non-telecommuter would be forced to face.

It was not necessarily my intent to be nasty, but, my GOD...you come in and propose draconian measures that would unduly inconvenience and harm some people and pat yourself on the back as if you were some kind of genius who just solved the problem...except you fail to consider all the problems you just caused for those for whom your solution is not workable.

MY proposed solution is a multi-pronged approach in which everyone benefits, and no one is unduly harmed. And, I believe a multi-pronged approach is the only way the problem will be solved.

consider now....

Prong 1 - Telecommuting. This takes at least 40% of cars off the road entirely. This leads to less environmental impact, less traffic for those for whom telecommuting is not an option, and leads to lower demand for gasoline, hence, a lower price at the pumps for those who cannot telecommute. In addition there are countless side benefits to families, single mothers, and many other people, as I have illustrated.

Prong 2 - Biodiesel. Say another 10% of gasoline cars off the road immediately, and perhaps up to another 40% in ten years. now, in ten years, we are already down to 1/5 the demand for gasoline as we were in peak years, before any of this was implemented. Imagine! Our fuel demands aree now a mere 20% of what they once were!

Prong 3 - 4-day workweeks. Now, instead of 5 days commuting, those commuting only need commute 4 days.that's another 20% off, so now we are down to just 16% of demand.

Let's add a Prong 4 - Public transportation (where available) and expansion of mass transit where it currently is not available. Currently, only about 10 percent of our population relies on public transportation. If we could double that, in ten years, to 20 percent...there's another 2 or 3 percentage points off our demand. Now we are down to about 12-14 percent of demand.

Theoretically, we could thus get down to nearly 10 percent of current demand, and inconvenience no one at all...and, in fact, many aspects of my plan would HELP many people, to say nothing of the environment.

How do we get down from the 12-14 percent I already stated to 10 percent??

Prong 5. Expand railroads. Use rail to move goods cross country, and trucks only for short trips from depots to the stores. No more cross-country semi-trucks. All right - that is the first prong I've suggested that might actually hurt someone...people who make their living as cross-country truck drivers! But many of them can become employed driving the trucks from the depots to the stores, instead. Now they get to be home with their families more often! SOMEONE still has to drive those trucks, no? Others could be employed at the depots, loading and unloading those same trucks. And still others could find work with the expanded railroad system.

Now, I have just outlined for you a five-pronged approach that could reasonably cut our fuel demand by nearly 90 percent, while negatively impacting almost nobody at all. And the first four prongs DON'T negatively impact anyone at all, and still those four prongs reduce the demand for gasoline to about 15% of current demand...WHILE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING NOBODY. Well, except maybe the CEO's of ExxonMobil and their ilk.

My point is...before suggesting a solution, you need to better think it out...think about how you would minimize the negative impact on people whose situations differ from your own...and thus, you create a multi-pronged solution that is generally workable for all people.

[Auntie Bush]

38. Calm down! Don't be so harsh on someone who was just trying

to find/suggest a solution. No need to be so hostile! Just state your view point! You scare the be-jesus out of any one who might want to post a comment. Think about other people...we all don't have your balls and might feel intimidated. Please...lighten up...be kind, be tolerant, be thoughtful, be considerate of other people and DU will be a much nicer experience. This isn't Freeper land! You've developed a bad habit!

[Lib Grrrrl]

42. Sorry, But

it REALLY irritates me when someone thinks they have a "brilliant idea" to solve all our problems...and the only people for whom the solution is workable is the person who suggested it.

They take no one's situation except their own into account. and then just expect everyone to say, "Oh, yeah, Great Swami...wonderful idea..."

How many people other than me brought up exactly the same points I did?

People who do not have public transportation in their area...and live too far from their church to walk.
People whose jobs require them to work/drive on Sundays.

Among other things that were brought up.

It just REALLY bugs the snot out of me that some people think that THEIR situation mirrors everyone else's...and so long as THEY can deal with whatever inconvenience their solution may cause...that everyone else can, too. some of us CAN'T.

[smartvoter]

40. Whooaaa. It was just discussion points. No need to be nasty. nt

[Montagnard]

11. That would mean everything that uses oil for power

with the exception I suppose of elelctrical companies..

[Lib Grrrrl]

8. Don't Like It

I live 13 1/2 miles from the closest church of my faith. How am I supposed to go to the house of worhip of my choice, on sunday, if I cannot drive?

What if one of my regularly-scheduled workdays is a Sunday? Not everyone works from 9-5 Monday thru Friday, you know!! What if I happen to work at a grocery store that is open seven days a week? And, in my case, the closest grocery store is five miles away. What if I work there? How am I supposed to get there on Sunday?

And don't tell me "public transportation" because, firstly, you said "EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY" already...and secondly...WHERE I LIVE...THERE IS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM!!

Nice idea, city boy.

[Montagnard]

9. When there is no more oil

how will we handle distance.

[Lib Grrrrl]

13. Alternative Fuel Sources

It is to be hoped by then that alternative fuel sources have been developed and perfected...if not, the entire economy is going to collapse. How will goods be moved from the point of manufacture to the point of sale?

Nice try, city boy. Just because it is a viable solution for YOUR life, does not mean it is viable for everyone else's.

Once again, a case of someone who only thinks of themselves...and thinks everyone's situation is exactly like theirs....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. No Thanks.

[Montagnard]

14. How would you solve the problem

and there is a problem....at some point we will have no choice...there will be no oil to be had at any price. There is no universal law that says we will come up with an alternative. How do we handle distance then, or any of the other things that are dependent upon petroleum?

[Lib Grrrrl]

15. Alternative Fuel Sources Are Already Being Developed

don't tell me that, by the time the oil's all gone, they won't have come up with another way. They are NOT going to let the entire economy collapse!

Right now, they are just sucking oil for everything they can get out of it, because they know the end is near.

Again, nice try, city boy...and awful nice of you to think only of your own self, and your own situation, when proposing a solution.

[Montagnard]

18. What are the alternative sources

dependent upon....power, the question is what is the ratio of power required to produce and a unit of alternative fuel? Will there be enough excess to continue with the current demand for power?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. I Don't Have The Right Answer, But I Can Tell You The Wrong Answer.

And the above, is the wrong answer. :P

[Montagnard]

19. It was just thinking out of the box

which is more than our current leaders are doing.

[Lib Grrrrl]

21. No...It Was THINKING ONLY OF YOUR OWN SELF

obviously...

YOU live such that a Sunday ban on driving would not unduly inconvenience YOU.

YOU work a job that does not involve working on Sunday.

YOU live in an area where public transportation is available.


As I have said, I live in a rural area. I have no choice. I can afford to live nowhere else. I live with my mom, rent-free, thanks to having had no job for nearly a year, due to the rotten Bush economy.

I live 13.5 miles from the nearest church of my faith (Unitarian-Universalist)

1 live 5 miles from the nearest grocery store or pharmacy.

I live 3 miles from even the nearest convenience store.

I live 14 miles from the nearest HOSPITAL!!

My mother has a seven-day-a-week job (newspaper delivery)

Public transportation is completely unheard of in Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

Nice try, city boy.

[CanSocDem]

123. You are missing the point....

However, to your credit, you are making a bigger one.

Your smug dismissals of the OP's talking points suggests that you aren't even aware of an energy crisis. Most Americans aren't, and so when you mention the drastic lifestyle changes that will be needed, they go into denial.

Good health and spiritual enlightenment come from riding a bike and growing your own food. But I do agree with you on the need to develop bio-fuel.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. I'm All For Thinking Outside The Box, But At Least Still Be On The Table.

One can think too outside the box that they fall off the ledge completely.

[Montagnard]

26. Hey, I willing to consider anything

aside from standing still and letting the train run over me.

[Lib Grrrrl]

28. Yeah...

INCLUDING LETTING THE TRAIN RUN OVER ANYONE ELSE THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN TO BE YOU.

[Runcible Spoon]

116. God, get over yourself!

As a feminist and fellow woman, I hate to call anyone "hysterical" but gads, girl, calm down the rabid baboon rhetoric and actually try to TALK to people. You will find them more receptive to your ideas.

[Lib Grrrrl]

124. Well

I will NEVER be receptive to ideas that cause harm to me and to other people! This guy doesn't seem to know or care the kind of harm he would bring onto others...because his idea brings no harm onto HIM.

That really irritates me.

[screembloodymurder]

22. I like it..

It's better than war.

[MadHound]

23. Better plan yet.

We have a ten year window, mandating that all vehicles are manufactured with diesel engines and capable of running on biodiesel. We set up all waste water treatment plants with algae ponds, and in addition stimulate the farming sector to grow algae for biodiesel. Then we start fueling each and every vehicle with biodiesel, and start switching off of gas onto biodiesel.

Then we don't have to shut down on any days, and people can continue with their lifestyle in a fairly normal manner.

[Lib Grrrrl]

27. Possible.

I'd need to see more detail on how that works, and could it actually satisfy our current and future demands for energy?

Could such vehicles be made affordable to those, like me, who currently own gasoline-powered cars? And how about those who cannot afford to replace them? What is to be done for THEM?

[MadHound]

31. Diesel equipped cars are no more expensive than gas cars

And yes, biodiesel, derived from algae, can fulfill all of our fuel needs, both now and in the future. This gentleman here<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> works out how much water it would take in order to grow enough algae for our needs, aprox. 15,000 sq miles. I would also suggest that we legalize hemp, and use it for biodiesel, among the myriad other products that hemp produces. The reason that I'm big on this is because hemp can be grown where no other crop can grow.

And I realize that not everybody will replace their cars within ten years, many are like myself and will drive a car into the ground. But the vast majority of people will buy a new car within ten years, and we can keep a fraction of our current gasoline industry going for these people. I'm guesstimating, but I'd say within twenty years, 99% of the people in this country would be driving a biodiesel powered vehicle within twenty years. And probably somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the population would be doing so within ten.

We would have to make this a gradual transition, which is why it's all the more urgent that we start now.

[Montagnard]

29. That is good

how far down the road are we on developing biodiesel?

[MadHound]

33. Biodiesel is ready to go, an off the shelf technology

In fact the original engine invented by Mr. Diesel was originally built to run on biodiesel.

Yes, we would have to build or convert more biodiesel refineries, another reason to phase this in over ten years, but the basic infrastructure of fueling stations, transportation etc. is already in place.

Any diesel engine can run on biodiesel. Some of them, especially older ones, might have to have their rubber fuel lines switched over to metal ones. Other than that:shrug: it's ready to go.

[Chemical Bill]

92. I've been running biodiesel since March 2003.

Does that date sound familiar? I bought a diesel when * invaded Iraq. I have to go out of my way to get biodiesel, but between the environment and the troops in Iraq I figure I have good reason to sacrifice. Check out biodiesel.org for more details.

Bill

[Lib Grrrrl]

32. ACTUALLY...HERE Is An Honestly Good Proposal...

Force all businesses than can do so to convert to having their workers telecommute, and work from home.

This will save businesses lots of money not having to rent and maintain giant office buildings. This will be a boon to single mothers...no longer will they have to spend all their salary on day care.

This will significantly cut down on traffic and fuel consumption.

The only problem is that it forces businesses to quit trying to micromanage the entire lives of their employees...and doesn't allow the boss to breathe down your neck every second of every day. Bosses HATE not being able to breathe down employees' necks, and not being able to micromanage every aspect of their employees work day.

Well boo-frickin-hoo...get used to it. Mine is absolutely the best situation possible.

Obviously, not everyone CAN telecommute. But, for those who CAN...it's a great thing. And for those who can't...well, the traffic you now face is considerably lighter...and with the far-lower demand for gas...the price you're paying at the pump ought to be lower.

[Inland]

36. There's always been a problem with telecommuting

and it's the "breathing down workers necks" part. Some jobs you got to have the people there. I suspect that there will be more and more as commutting becomes more and more expensive, but I suspect employers will cut back on wages on the assumption of lost productivity. A good assumption, as I pound away on DU from four thirty today.

[Lib Grrrrl]

44. Yep.

And my answer to that is quite simple. You move everyone onto a piece-work rate of pay. Not hourly. That way, those who produce get paid. Those who don't produce...well, they don't get paid. and eventually, they get replaced with people who WILL work when they are supposed to.

[smartvoter]

41. What a selfish proposal.

That only works for people with your kinds of jobs, and assumes that broadband access is available to all rural locations for people who don't live in metropolitan areas, which often is not the case. Nice try, city girl... :evilgrin:

[Lib Grrrrl]

43. Wrong Again

I already as much as STATED that not everyone could telecommute...it would apply only to those with jobs that could be done via telecommuting. and those who could not telecommute would reap advantages from that proposal in that there would be far less traffic for THEM to contend with...and, with lower demand on gasoline, the price THEY pay at the pump would come down. Next time, why don't you try actually READING everything that is said before taking out the hammer and nails?

Secondly, broadband Internet access IS available. We live in a very rural area, and get ours thru cable. We can't get DSL here, but we CAN get cable....or satellite.
Obviously, in my scenario, the employer would be required to subsidize the worker for their broadband Internet connection, so that they would be able to work from home.

Thirdly, if you had READ anything I wrote, you'd know damn well I was NOT a city girl.

So, before you get out the hammer and nails, I suggest you carefully read EXACTLY what I wrote again...AND READ ALL OF IT...not just the parts that suit your agenda of nailing me to a cross.

[smartvoter]

45. Ha!!!!

The person with the hammer and nails calls others crucifiers... Classic forum bully can't take her own medicine back, even when it clearly was in jest following her own posts calling others selfish city folk. God, I love it when the self-righteous get on their kicks. Getting them all fired up takes zero effort... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lib Grrrrl]

46. HA!!

And I love it when people purposefully irritate others, while admitting they are doing it solely to be annoying and to irritate...and then have the nerve to call the TARGET of such attacks "self-righteous."

I just love people who intentionally go out of their way to annoy, harrass and antogonize others...and then call the targets of such behavior "self-righteous."

Putting people like that on IGNORE takes zero effort.

Goodbye.

[smartvoter]

56. LOL. Playing the victim is always the fallback position. nt

[Lib Grrrrl]

62. Hmm...Makes You Wonder If Some People Know What IGNORE Means

I've already stated I put him on ignore, and have done so...yet he still sees fit to put up a reply I'll never see - and yet, accuses ME of being a bully?
Accuses ME of being self-righteous??

HEY, "SMARTVOTER" YOU DO KNOW I HAVE YOU ON IGNORE, RIGHT??? THAT I CAN'T SEE YOUR INANE COMMENTS, RIGHT?? SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AWAY??

[Runcible Spoon]

115. I don't know what else to say to you besides...

get off the computer, have a cup of tea, and remind yourself of life's small, nice things. :hi:

[rman]

119. you could just say nothing

instead of telling someone what to do.

[Runcible Spoon]

122. that's rich.

:eyes:

[rman]

118. you're here to start a flame war?

"Getting them all fired up takes zero effort"

[Lib Grrrrl]

125. LOL - Exactly Why My Response Was

"Putting them on IGNORE takes zero effort!!"
:rofl:

I give no airspace to those who are here to start flame wars.

Flame wars start, they happen...I can deal with that.
But someone whose sole, stated objective is to start a flame war? I have just one thing to say to someone like that...Goodbye.

Glad to see you and I are in agreement on this point.

[Inland]

35. How about five buck a gallon gas and it all happens anyway?

After all, it's not SUNDAY driving, it's All driving that uses gas. When the price goes up, people will figure out how to conserve. Until then,what's the point?

[Heddi]

49. What about hospitals? Nurses? DOctors

As a new nurse, it is absolutely impossible for the 2 hospitals in our area (only hospitals for nearly 200 miles in any direction) to operate with the short staffing we have now. To force people to work 10 hour days, 4 days a week--not gonna happen. Most nurses at the 2 hospitals work a minimum of 60 hours a week IF THEY ARE LUCKY to only have to work 60 hours a week.

Hospitals cannot be shut down at 8pm, nor can they choose to close on some arbitrary day of the week.

Patients need their family member and friends around them as much as possible (when appropriate) to facilitate the healing process. To deny patients (and their family) a day of vistation, even one day of visitation, is a torturous idea.

I think your idea is ill planned and not realistic for the majority of people in this country.

There are many businesses that NEED to operate before 6am and after 8pm, that need to be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, that need drivers and workers to get to their places of employment.

Further in the thread you say you're a "country boy"---goody for you. Not everyone is. Not everyone can live a simplified lifestyle that you seem to be advocating. Not everyone can get by working 40 hours a week. Not everyone has the stamina to work 10 hours straight in a day. Humans deserve and need certain amounts of flexibility in their lives.

For many people, the weekend is the time to get away. Go for a drive in teh country, go to the beach, see relatives and friends.

Your plan would strip away the ability for people to not only work the hours and the jobs they need to in order to have a basic level of living, but you strip away their ability to socialize not only when they want to, but during the times they NEED to.

Based on your plan, restaurants and bars and clubs would be out of business (seeing as they have to close by 8pm). That would put MILLIONS of service-industry workers out of business. What about college students who go to school during the day and work at night? Or work during the day and take classes at night? There, again, is another subset of Americans whose lives will be ultimately disrupted because of your inability to see that others are not "country boys" and do not have the same ability to compartmentalize their lives in to 10 hour days with Friday, Saturday, or Sundays off.

Just because a plan works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone. This is DEFINITELY a plan that does not work for even the slightest majority of Americans today.

[Lib Grrrrl]

53. Thank You!!!

I said the same sorts of things to him, but I got blasted for it.

[earth mom]

50. I don't like the sunday idea.

That is the only day my husband has off right now and we sometimes enjoy going out on family jaunts on that day.

I think Bio-diesel is the way to go and perhaps some sort of gas card rationing card like they had during WWII, so people can decide for themselves how and when to use their vehicles.

[Lib Grrrrl]

54. Don't Like Rationing Card Idea

If you live out where I live...you have to drive 60 to 70 miles one way in order to find a job that pays worth a damn. Now, are you gonna tell me that they will ration us enough gas that we can actually get back and forth between those jobs?

You would force a lot of us to take jobs at substandard pay...to leave jobs we'd been at for many years...or move, which we don't want to do.

Rations is not workable. Different people, in different situations, need different rations. what if I run out of rations in the middle of the week....in the middle of the highway? Am I forced to stay there the rest of the week?

WHY, in the name of GOD don't more people look at my five-prong plan, and realize that MY solution is the best?

[earth mom]

96. One of your "prongs" won't work for our family.

My husband can't telecommute for his job.

However, most of your "prongs" are good-biodisel, railroads, 4 day work week-and have been discussed before around here. I'm a stay at home mom and drive our kid to and from school several miles and I would certainly be in favor or a 4 day school week. It seems to me that the school day is much shorter these days and the 5th day could easily be added on to the other 4 days.

My ration card idea was nothing more than a way to force people to not be so selfish to get in their cars and drive every single day of the week. It was not personal and not aimed at anyone in particular. I realize it may not be possible for everyone.

I think we are all in agreement that things need to change and therefore we must look at this all in an intelligent way. The biggest hurdle, however, is the fact that our g'ment is only willing to support what works for and benefits big business. So, most of the ideas we, the people, support won't get addressed-NO WAY NO HOW.

It's frustrating not to mention mind boggling how foolish and short sighted they are in the name of GREED. :banghead:

[Lib Grrrrl]

101. That Is WHY It It A Multi-Pronged Approach

Obviously, not all the prongs will work for everyone...nor are they intended to.

What IS intended...is that people will take advantage of, and use...those prongs which work for their situation. So that, while there is now a six-prong approach (someone added a good one) the idea was that everyone would engage in using just two or three of the prongs, each according to what worked for their own situation...and that, collectively, all six prongs would be in use in different segments of society...and collectively, we would reduce our demand for petroleum.

My own ambitious, yet achieveable goal of 90% reduction in petroleum use, while possible...may not actually be achievable - but, utilizing the six-pronged approach, it is certainly reasonable that would could cut our dependency in half. and that would go a long way towards solving our problems.

just as an example...you say you are a stay-at-home-mom. How would you like to be able to work a part-time job, from home...and thus, not have to worry about day care? You'd have some extra income coming in while your kids were away at school, anyway...and no need for a babysitter, daycare...or anything else that would eat up the extra income you could earn working from home yourself...even if your husband can't.

I'm fully aware not every job IS able to be done via telecommuting. Examples, plumbers, doctors, assembly-line manufacturing jobs, police and firemen, paramedics, etc, etc. BUT...for those who COULD telecommute...the Federal government would require the businesses to allow it. This would remove much traffic from our roads. This would remove much pollutants from our air. This would remove a lot of stress from people used to battling traffic every day - leading to increased productivity and morale. It would help single moms, too.

My intent, in introducing the plan I did...was to combine a number of good ideas - some of which may not be feasible for some people...but all of which would help a lot - and hurt nobody.

Because there is no simple, easy, one-size-fits-all solution. Come on...we are both women, and we KNOW the lie of "one size fits all!!" :-)

The point is...ration cards would hurt some people. Designating days of no driving would hurt some people. Other ideas suggested in this thread all have a way of hurting some people. My approach was to take those ideas...mine or other's...that appeared to hurt no-one...and combine them into a multi-pronged approach that could be utilized to address the problems, while not hurting anyone...taking into account, of course, that not everyone would find every single prong to be workable in their own given situation.

I attempted to be thoughtful, reasonable, and rational in advancing the plan I did.

Does this clear up my intentions for you? I believe that, while my plan may not be perfect, and it may need a bit of tweaking here and there...it's a hell of a good start on what eventually will have to be done, in order to allieviate the problems we are now facing.

[Lib Grrrrl]

55. Five-Pronged Solution That Is Actually WORKABLE

MY proposed solution is a multi-pronged approach in which everyone benefits, and no one is unduly harmed. And, I believe a multi-pronged approach is the only way the problem will be solved.

consider now....

Prong 1 - Telecommuting. This takes at least 40% of cars off the road entirely. This leads to less environmental impact, less traffic for those for whom telecommuting is not an option, and leads to lower demand for gasoline, hence, a lower price at the pumps for those who cannot telecommute. In addition there are countless side benefits to families, single mothers, and many other people, as I have illustrated in previous postings on this thread...the benefits of telecommuting are MANY!!

Prong 2 - Biodiesel. Say another 10% of gasoline cars off the road immediately, and perhaps up to another 40% in ten years. Now, in ten years, we are already down to 1/5 the demand for gasoline as we were in peak years, before any of this was implemented. Imagine! Our fuel demands aree now a mere 20% of what they once were!

Prong 3 - 4-day workweeks. Now, instead of 5 days commuting, those commuting only need commute 4 days.that's another 20% off, so now we are down to just 16% of demand.

Let's add a Prong 4 - Public transportation (where available) and expansion of mass transit where it currently is not available. Currently, only about 10 percent of our population relies on public transportation. If we could double that, in ten years, to 20 percent...there's another 2 or 3 percentage points off our demand. Now we are down to about 12-14 percent of demand.

Theoretically, we could thus get down to nearly 10 percent of current demand, and inconvenience no one at all...and, in fact, many aspects of my plan would HELP many people, to say nothing of the environment.

How do we get down from the 12-14 percent I already stated to 10 percent??

Prong 5. Expand railroads. Use rail to move goods cross country, and trucks only for short trips from depots to the stores. No more cross-country semi-trucks. All right - that is the first prong I've suggested that might actually hurt someone...people who make their living as cross-country truck drivers! But many of them can become employed driving the trucks from the depots to the stores, instead. Now they get to be home with their families more often! SOMEONE still has to drive those trucks, no? Others could be employed at the depots, loading and unloading those same trucks. And still others could find work with the expanded railroad system.

Now, I have just outlined for you a five-pronged approach that could reasonably cut our fuel demand by nearly 90 percent, while negatively impacting almost nobody at all. And the first four prongs DON'T negatively impact anyone at all, and still those four prongs reduce the demand for gasoline to about 15% of current demand...WHILE NEGATIVELY IMPACTING NOBODY. Well, except maybe the CEO's of ExxonMobil and their ilk.

[dysfunctional press]

58. where do you get your figures?

are they from actual citable sources, or pretty much just pulled out of thin air?

[Lib Grrrrl]

60. The Figures Are Somewhat Vague - But They Are Close To Accurate

However, I have read that fully 40-60% of Americans COULD telecommute to their jobs. So I selected the low end of that particular statistic...and went with 40%.

Next, I estimated the number of conversions from gas to biodiesel, over a ten-year period, assuming such a conversion was demanded by law...and, again, I was very conservative in my estimate, using a 40% figure.

Third...it is common sense that if you drive the same distance to work every day, then you will drive only 80% as much as you used to if you do it only 4 days a week instead of 5.

Fourth, I have also read elsewhere that approximately 10 percent of all Americans rely on public transportation. My fourth prong doubles that to twenty percent, because of the expansion of mass transit into areas not yet served by mass transit.

Would you rather, if you had to commute...deal with friggin traffic...or relax on a train? I know which one I would rather do, given a choice! It seems reasonable that, if we can bring the choice to more people than those who have it now...we can also increase usage. I hypothesized a doubling of usage for my figures to 20 percent.

So, can I source this? Not really. I have no idea where I have read this stuff, but I could look around. But you asked. I didn't exactly just pull figures out of thin air...these are based on figures I have read over the past couple of years in various articles and sources. In some cases, I did guess...but always took the conservative approach when guessing.

[Lib Grrrrl]

63. Ah...Here's A Bit Of Documentation - Source Link...

4. Equity Issues

Telecommuting benefits those in the information and service industries or those able to function independently once work has been assigned. By 1980, it was estimated that over half of the employment positions in the United States met these criteria.

And you can go to the web page I got this from, if you wish...

http://yosemite.epa.gov/aa/tcmsitei.nsf/9bd6f3b7217f80c28525652f0053e105/b2dea0195b282597852565d90076b557!OpenDocument#par

At any rate - this is as of 1980!! And even there it says over half.

I thought I had read SOMEWHERE that between 40-60% of jobs could be done via telecommuting!!

This is why, for my five-pronged solution, I was conservative and chose to use the 40% figure.

Well, there you have documentation!

ON EDIT: There you go! You see, I do not, as it were, just pull figures out of my ass. I do not always have sources readily available, but I never cite figures that I cannot back up in the event I am challenged. As I said, in some cases I estimated based upon best available information, and made a few assumptions...but, for the most part, as you can see...my figures are verifiable...and now, sourced for your conveniense. I really hate people who won't believe something until you shove it under their nose....

[dysfunctional press]

65. that's prong 1...

and it seems like a pretty high "estimate" when you consider the types of work that people do...out of over two dozen friends i know, only 3 are in jobs that could be done wholly by telecommuting.

and where is the documentation to back up the numbers in the other 4 prongs?

[Lib Grrrrl]

69. Okay...Fair Question

I have documented Prong 1.

Prong 2 is entirely hypothetical. However, if we were to federally mandate a slow conversion to biodiesel, as I suggested, then we can put the numbers anywhere we want...because this is what would be required under the Federal mandate.

And since biodiesel technology already exists, there is no reason why the cited number cannot be achieved. So, again, I conservatively estimated 40% as the mandate - that is to say, it would be mandated that within a ten year period 40% of all gasoline-powered automobiles be replaced by biodiesel engines.

There is thus, no documentation to be had. I'm assuming that this would be the mandated figure. And it is reasonable that such a mandate can be met, given that the technology to do this already exists.

No need to document Prong #3. Obviously, if you drive say, 10 miles to work, one way, every day...then, commuting 5 days a week means you are driving 100 miles. If you commute only 4 days, you are driving only 80 miles...hence, a 20% reduction, as stated, in Prong 3. That is just simple mathematics.

Prong 4. I am making an assumption here - however, one which is conservative, and also based on available data. Currently, 1/10 - or ten percent, of all Americans currently use/rely upon...public mass transportation. It seems reasonable, then, that if you expand mass transit to serve areas not currently served, that the number, or percentage, of people using or relying on mass transit would also increase...and so I estimated that usage of mass transit could double in ten years, once areas currently not served, became served, by mass transit.

Prong 5. Again, this is a very conservative estimate. A guess, if you will...based upon what seems reasonable...and a conservative guess at that.

Even so, just taking the first three prongs only...it is reasonable to say that we could reduce our dependence upon petroleum by approximately 80 percent in ten years. just by implementing the three prongs that I can fully substantiate.

Or do you see a problem with my sources? Or my reasoning?

As I said, I fully documented Prong 1. And remember that is an estimate from 1980. since then, we have become more wired...and more of a service-oriented economy...and more jobs have been created which COULD be done thru telecommuting. Even so, I have chosen to stick with my very conservative 40% estimate. Because there could also be times where normally telecommuting employees might need to go into the home office.

Prong 2 needs no documentation, because I am proposing a Federal mandate...and as such, I can make that mandate whatever I choose. In this case, I took what seemed reasonable...because the technology to do it already exists. Therefore, I took a conservative approach to what is reasonable, and decided that 40% conversion in ten years is not an unrealistic goal of such a Federal mandate.

Prong 3 needs no documentation as it is simple mathematics. If you reduce, by 20% the number of days commuting employees work....obviously, you reduce their feul consumption by the same 20 percent.

Questions?

[dysfunctional press]

74. replacing 40% vehicles with bio-diesel within 10 years is un-realistic

you'd have to get a system up and running to supply that much bio-diesel fuel.- that means developing the refineries, and getting the massive amounts of crops online as well.
you'd have to get the engines designed, tools to make them designed and made, and installed into factories. true- there are already working models- but not every vehicle can use the same type of engine- just look at the vast array of gasoline driven engines in existence
and A LOT of people would have to buy the new cars. how many people do you know who could just go out and buy a new car tomorrow? and remember- you won't get squat for your outmoded trade-in.

very expensive propositions all around.

take a look at just how long it takes them to implement a miniscule change in the cafe standards.

i'm not a raging capitalist, but i think that this is one area where market forces(supply/demand/etc.) will ultimately have to do most of the work.

[Lib Grrrrl]

80. I Disagree

But we can agree to disagree on this point.

[dysfunctional press]

86. the numbers are kind of staggering...

the most recent info i could find showed that in 2003, there were 204,000,000 vehicles in the u.s....i honestly don't know what the percentages are, gas vs. diesel, but your talking at least 5-6 million(probably a lot more- i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) new cars needing to be designed, produced, sold,(and remember- trade-ins will be virtually worthless).

and remember- that's just the car end- the fuel end is going to be complex enough itself...and what happens if there's an extended drought in the chosen fuel-bio-mass producing states...?

just thinking it can be done, and actually thinking it out are two different things.

[Chemical Bill]

93. Maybe, but let's try anyway.

A "Manhattan Project" for making biodiesel would cost less than the war in Iraq. Trucks use a lot of diesel fuel, and their exhaust would be much cleaner if it were biodiesel.

Bill

[dysfunctional press]

97. go for it....

let me know how you do with that...:hi:

[Lib Grrrrl]

73. Well

Just because YOU do not know a lot of people who can telecommute does not mean that reflects the actual number of people who could. Are you questioning my source? My source, in this case...as you may have noticed, is a government source, in fact, it comes direct from the EPA.

Again, do we assume that YOUR acquaintances are an accurate representation of a cross-section of the American workforce?

Your "evidence" is strictly anectodatl. Mine is from a government source.

First, you bitch that I have no source, and no documentation....then, when I come up with it - you question it based upon only your own observation. Probably because you have an axe to grind, and an agenda to fill...and that is, I propose...you are hell-bent on beating down my proposal, while offering up nothing better yourself.

People like you piss me off.

First, you demand people PROVE their case...and then, when they do that, you question them anyway, just because your own observations do not agree with the unbiased, reliable, documented source provided you.

If there's anything I hate worse than someone who will believe nothing until proof is shoved under their nose....it is someone who won't believe something until proof is shoved under their nose...and then, when that proof is shoved under their nose, they will not accept the proof, because it goes against what they already wanted to believe!

In a nutshell...you are annoying the shit out of me! you asked me to source and document, and back up my statistics. I did so...and now you're attacking my documentation!

As bad as someone is who will believe nothing without proof being shoved under their nose is...someone who won't believe even after that proof is shoved under their nose is even worse.

[dysfunctional press]

88. your "government source" is also a 25-year old "estimate"...

and you can put all the faith you want in 25-year-old government estimates...btw- what were the government estimates during the 1990's about what are economy would be like today?

hmmmmmmmm?

[Lib Grrrrl]

89. If Anything

I would say the estimate is low, compared to what could be done with telecommuting today...considering that we are far more wired than we were in 1980...and we are much more a service-oriented economy than we were before. Obviously, a manufacturing job cannot be done via telecommuting. but a customer service job often can be.

Example, Jet Blue Airlines does ALL their reservations with home-based workers. All they need do is route the calls to the home phones of their workers...and hook those worker's computers into the reservation net.

So, if anything, I would say the estimate is low...and that, more likely, about 70% of jobs could be done via telecommuting.

[dysfunctional press]

98. you're way off...

70%...? hardly.
retail, construction, food service, government jobs, janitorial, agricultural, landscaping, healthcare, manufacturing and on and on...there are lots and lots of jobs and industries where telecommuting doesn't make any sense whatsover. and even in those jobs where it is a possibility- it just doesn't make good economic sense for employers, or they'd already be doing it on a large scale. and in fact, many companies are actually curtailing the amount of telecommuting, because they find workers aren't nearly as productive- generally because there are so many more distractions for the would-be workers.

[Lib Grrrrl]

105. Bullshit! You Sound Like A Manager!!

Firstly, it can and DOES make good economic sense for employers. Managers don't like it, though, because it takes away THEIR ability to lord their position over underlings, and treat them like garbage, by breathing down their necks and dumping on them all day long...micromanaging every aspect, of every second, of every worker's work day.

It adds a hell of a lot of stress to the worker, which lowers morale...and productivity.

Furthermore...if you think there aren't plenty of "distractions" in the workplace, then you aren't looking around very much. There are FAR MORE distractions in an office than there would be in a quiet home office, where no one was around but you.

Co-workers forever blab and gossip all day instead of working. Smoke breaks would no longer be needed, because, if you work from your own home...you could smoke at your desk if you so chose. No more standing around the water cooler swapping jokes instead of working! No more sexual harassment! No more discrimination - the only thing that would be able to be evaluated is PERFORMANCE. Nothing else would matter.

Fact is employers RESIST telecommuting, only because they do not wish to lose "control" of their ability to lord themselves over others...and breathe down their necks all the time.

There are plenty of documented studies that show productivity and morale both improve with telecommuting. You do your own fucking homework, I have done enough of it for your ass. Believe me or not, I don't quite frankly give a good God damn. Screw your questioning everything, and your contradiction of everything I say...even when I shove the proof under your nose, you contradict it...so fuck it, I'm damned if I am gonna dig up more research, just to have you dismiss it, because you don't like what it says.

To hell with it. any more contradiction out of you...any more bullshit out of you, and you are going to my Ignore list...I have just about had all I can fucking take of you!

[dysfunctional press]

132. and you sound like a problem employee...

if telecommuting made economic sense, companies would have already adopted it on a large scale- which just isn't happening. despite what you may think about how a business operates- the managers aren't there to harass- they're there to get productive results. and generally- the employees that complain the most, and have the most paranoia about management are usually the biggest problems with the least productivity.

and if telecommuting was so effective, the jobs where it made sense to telecommute would just about all be off shored to India or asia, where the work can be done for MUCH cheaper, and without having to deal with prima donna american workers.

[Lib Grrrrl]

136. I Have Had It With You

I warned you...any more garbage from you, and to the Ignore list you went.

Well...goodbye. You no longer exist on MY DU.

[dysfunctional press]

139. woe is me...

:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

75. a little bad news for the telecommuting prong...

http://www.ischool.washington.edu/mcdonald/courses/imt546_au04/readings-11.13/westfall.pdf

Conclusion
To put the productivity issue in context, the continuing
emphasis on increasing productivity throughout the
U.S. and world economies has been a major driving
force for IT investments. Suppose that telecommuting
consistently generated significant productivity gains—
for example just 10% rather than the much higher gains
reported in the literature—and that these gains were
translating into measurable increases in bottom-line
profitability. If this were really happening, companies
that employ large numbers of knowledge workers would
have adopted telecommuting on a large scale a long time
ago, on a mandatory basis where necessary,and would be
continuing to promote it heavily. To the contrary, many
organizations offer telecommuting as an option, but are
not strongly encouraging it. This is a very telling indica-
tor that telecommuting does not deliver, at least at the
level of the whole organization, the productivity gains
touted by consultants and vendors.


and as far as using numbers from 1980 and assuming they can be extrapolted from- here is a thread from earlier today on du:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1156082

op five employers in the United States in 2005 and 1995.

I ran across this yesterday:

Top five employers in the United States and number of employees in 2005*

Manpower, Inc 23,000,000
Wal-Mart 1,500,000
Kelly Services, Inc 707,900
Labor Ready, Inc 602,770
McDonald's Corp. 418,000

Here are the top five employers and number of employees in 1995**

Manpower, Inc 1,206,700
Manpower International, Inc (Suby of Manpower, Inc) 1,200,00
General Motors Corp, 694,000
Kelly Services, Inc 634,000
Wal-Mart 528,000

In 2005, General Motors ranked no. 8 with 326,000 employees.
----------
and one more thought about telecommuting- if an American can do their job effectively from home over the phone lines, then most likely, somebody in India can do it just as effectively, and for A LOT less money.

[Lib Grrrrl]

81. My Take On This Is

not that the productivity is an issue...I don't believe it is...but, rather, businesses are reluctant to give up their ability to micromanage every aspect of every second of every employee's work day. In other words, companies don't want to give up the ability to breathe down their worker's necks constantly...which is why the idea of telecommuting is not greeted with more enthusiasm.

My opinion.

[dysfunctional press]

85. companies are all about the bottom-line and productivity.

if telecommuting made economic/business sense- it would already be being done.
it's also difficult for large parts of the service industry- the largest growing sector, to telecommute.

[Lib Grrrrl]

90. It DOES Make Economic/Business Sense

But old-fashioned managers fear embracing such ideas, because it causes them to lose the ability to micromanage every aspect of every second of every worker's work day. They don't want to lose the ability to hound their workers.

You can do your own damned homework, I have done enough for you, mr/miss question all. The fact is...it is well documented that telecommuting increases productivity, and employee morale. But it's hell selling managers on this.

Managers tend to think that the only reason people work is because the manager is breathing down the employee's neck all day. Maybe some workers WOULD screw off. So you fire them when they fail to produce. and you hire people who WILL work, even without supervision. People like me. Personally, I work BETTER when I don't have a freaking boss breathing down my neck all day. It's less stressful. Thus, I tend to actually get more done, because I'm spending less time and ebergy constantly worrying about the boss. To say nothing of all the time that is no longer wasted gossiping among workers.

[dysfunctional press]

99. no,it doesn't.

if it's so well-documented, let's see some proof- i've already given you a link that says otherwise.
if telecommuting made economic sense for a business, it would already be happening on a large scale...when in fact the opposite is true- many companies are actually reducing the amount of telecommuting that their employees are allowed to do.
and also- the more effective telecommuting is for an industry, the more likely it is for those jobs to be outsourced to India or Asia, where the workers will be more productive for less wages- plus, it allows work to get done "overnight"- while the manager in the u.s. sleeps, the telecommuters on the other side of the planet are doing work that will be done and ready when mr. U.S. managerperson gets into his office in the morning.
so- as far as telecommuting is concerned, you might want to be careful what you wish for.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

57. completely unworkable..

if you want people to conserve, why would you want to drive down the price of gas?

when gas is more expensive, people drive less...if that drives down prices(probably won't, unless you get china and india to play along by halting the growth of their middle classes) people will start driving more again.

this is one of those things where you have to let market forces make the decisions- supply and demand.

[Lib Grrrrl]

59. Wrong.

People drive now because they NEED to...not just because they CAN or because they WANT to. Most driving is done because of NEED - specifically, getting back and forth to work.

So take that need away. Let folks who can telecommute.

That already lowers demand, and thus lowers price, for those who can't telecommute.

Secondly, the conversion to biodiesel further lowers usage...and thus demand...further lowering prices - and more importantly, demand.

See, the thing is...everything I am proposing in my plan IS CONSERVATION - but it is conservation that does not hurt...is not coerced, and is not brought about by hurting people at the pumps with outrageous prices.

Why do you want to kill people at the pumps and line the pockets of oil execs, like Lee Raymond?

Under my plan, people will conserve, not because they want to...but because their NEED TO DRIVE will be diminished. It will be a natural occurrance resulting from less people needing to drive. Added to the switchover to biodiesel, we are talking some serious reduction in our demand for, AND USE OF, petroleum products.

Why do you want to cause pain and suffering to people when there is a better way, a painless way...to achieve the same ends? do you just enjoy hurting people or what?

[dysfunctional press]

64. if people only drive because they NEED to-

why does mass transit ridership go up when fuel costs spike? :eyes:

[Lib Grrrrl]

70. Because

for some people the OPTION of mass transit is available...and they choose to use it, in order to manage their own budget.

Assuming then, my Prong 4...if mass transit were made even more available...expanding it to communities currently not served, does it not stand to reason that mass transit usage would rise accordingly?

[dysfunctional press]

77. expanding mass transit on a large scale would be very expensive..

and no, it's not at all like field of dreams- just because you build it doesn't mean that people will come.

i don't know if you live in a major metro area- but if you do, try taking a drive on an expressway during rush hour- how many cars have more than 1 person in them? in the chicago area, that number is very few.
if people aren't even willing to carpool, what makes you think thatthey'd make a larger leap to mnass transit?
and in the chicago area, there is extensive mass transit to and from the sub-urban areas, but the highways are still jammed.

[Lib Grrrrl]

82. Well, I Know That If I Had A Choice

I would prefer mass transit over private transit, for the simple fact it's cheaper.

[dysfunctional press]

87. it isn't necessarily cheaper.

if you end up having a bus carry 4 or 5 passengers along a route, it's not very cost effective.

buses and trains aren't exactly free you know...the mass transit fairy doesn't just wave a wand and "poof", there they are...

but sure, if i could have a bus pick me up half a block from home, take me to the train station, and then have the train drop me off half a block from my job, i'd love it. and actually, that's just what my wife has...although i usually drive her to the train in the morning, but she runs the 2.5 miles home in the evening. me, i'm retired.

[Lib Grrrrl]

91. It's Cheaper Than

Car insurance, car payments, maintenance on a car, and gas!
As long as the mass transit can get me reasonably close to both home and work, I would prefer mass transit over private vehicle, any time...to go to and from work.

How much does the average bus ride cost? Maybe a buck? The average train ride? Maybe two bucks? So, let's say, for round figures, mass transit, to and from work, costs five dollars a day. After all, you can buy monthly passes, etc...so let's say five bucks a day.

The average worker works, say 22 days a month. So we are talking $110 a month. Most people's car insurance ALONE is more than that. Most people car payments ALONE are more than that. and with gas prices as high as they are, I venture to say most people spend more than that on gasoline ALONE.

Now...I can go to and from work in a mode cheaper than private vehicle...and I can relax, read a book or a newspaper...or I can battle traffic. Which would you choose?

I know which works better for me! Of course, I don't HAVE this choice, because mass transit isn't available in the area in which I live. If they expanded it to cover my area, I'd use it.

Hell, when I used to live in Austin, Texas, I often took my bike and the bus to get to places...I even did it to commute to work for over a month when I had no car, because I needed engine work done.

Of course, I also lived right along a bus line, and worked about a block and a half from the bus stop. So I suppose I could have even walked it, but I hate walking. I'd rather ride a bike than walk.

[dysfunctional press]

100. mass transit costs money too

and if it can't attract enough riders to support a particular route- that route will dissappear.

buses and trains need maintenence too- they need fuel, they need drivers, they need insurance, they need bus barns and train yards.
plus- most americans are used to the freedom of setting their own schedule- being able to run errands before or after work and the like- a lot of people are tied to their cars, and the farther out into the sub-urban areas you go, the fatrher things are spread out, and the more expensive mass transit is going to be- and if it's too rural, there just won't be enough of a tax-base to support a widespread mass-transit system that will be effective and convienent enough to draw enough riders to make it cost-effective.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

66. just because someone doesn't have an alternative handy-

it doesn't mean that the other plan is workable.

you do understand that, right..?

[Lib Grrrrl]

71. Of Course

But...since that person seems so hell-bent on attacking MY five-pronged approach, which really does seem reasonable...and would create no real hardship for anyone...then, the least they could do is to come up with an alternative, better solution....or point out WHY mine is not workable.

You do realize, of course, that just because someone SAYS my solution is not workable does not mean that it isn't.

My point is...I have offered up what seems a reasonable solution...a many-pronged approach to solving a problem. This approach I have offered up inconveniences/hurts nobody. In fact, it even helps many people, as well as the environment. It takes into account that not everyone will be able to utilize all five prongs...but that people WILL utilize the prongs that they can...and they can thus adjust themselves accodingly, without causing undue hardship to themselves. This is WHY a multi-pronged approach is going to be required. Because not everyone is going to be able to conveniently utilize any one solution. So, by offering choices, and many different approaches, people can then choose to use those which work for their given situation.

My point is...if someone is going to be so hell-bent on blasting MY proposed solution, then the least they can do is to either come up with a better alternative solution...or at the very least document why mine does not work. Not just SAY it won't work, and then run off. At least demonstrate WHY mine doesn't work...or advance a better alternative solution. ever heard it said that if you are not a part of the solution, then you are part of the problem? That is what I am saying. right now, the person who is hell-bent on blasting ME...while offering up nothing better - is part of the problem...not part of the solution. I am inviting that person to become a part of the solution, by offering up something better than what I just offered up. Curiously, however, that person doesn't seem to have a better idea. So, they need to put up or shut up.

[dysfunctional press]

102. my solution would be to let real market forces do the job.

plain and simple.
and history has shown that it generally works.

[Lib Grrrrl]

108. I Know Another Forum

that shall not be named...where this would be exactly THEIR answer, too.

[dysfunctional press]

133. and sometimes it's the right answer- like in this case.

whether you might like it or not.

[rd_kent]

67. Hold up now!

While I think a 10 hour workday is a great idea, until an affordable alternative to a combustion engine is available, outlawing their use is asinine!
The best way to curb gas use is to keep the price going up! As hard as it is to take, paying more for gas will make you think twice about taking the SUV to the mailbox.

[Lib Grrrrl]

72. Yeah, Great Idea, O Great Swami rd!!!

And by causing the prices to go up, you victimize the very poor...who are already being forced to choose between eating and heating their homes in the wintertime!

You are not offering up a solution that does not cause undue harm to some people.

MY proposal, however, DOES address the problem...AND does not cause undue harm to other people...particularly, the very poor, who would be hurt the most by your proposal to raise prices into the stratosphere!

Or do you just enjoy watching other people suffer?

[rd_kent]

68. Hold up now!

While I think a 10 hour workday is a great idea, until an affordable alternative to a combustion engine is available, outlawing their use is asinine!
The best way to curb gas use is to keep the price going up! As hard as it is to take, paying more for gas will make you think twice about taking the SUV to the mailbox.

[lonestarnot]

76. How about a 3 day work week 6 hours per day? LOL

I need some sleep!

[Lib Grrrrl]

114. I Like It

if we still get paid as if we were working 40 hours.

Screw the employers, they can afford it!!

[CAcyclist]

78. I have a better idea

Pay people to ride their bikes to work and to run errands.

50% of all car trips are less than 2 miles - this is less than a 10 minute bike ride.

In order to encourage people to ride bikes, restripe all streets with a 5 foot wide bike lane excluding parking spaces and a 3 foot "door zone". On multiple lane roads, designate the right-hand lane as the combination bike lane/parking lane and ban cars from driving in it. Require all businesses to provide secure bike parking.

These are all low cost easily implemented ideas with the only stumbling block being the prejudice against bicyclists and the selfishness of car drivers.

If only 10 % of people switched from driving cars to riding bikes, we'd solve our gas crisis, help improve our average health rates, reduce pollution and make our streets quieter , safer and more enjoyable. 90% of the people - the disabled, aged, infirm and the lazy whiners can keep driving their cars and benefiting from the moderating gas prices.

[Lib Grrrrl]

83. Not Sure I Like That Idea

What's to keep the cars from using said bike lane as a way to get around other cars?

I have biked on busy streets before, and you are damn near taking your life in your hands...some drivers scare the literal CRAP outta me while I'm on a bike!

[CAcyclist]

95. By allowing parking so that the lane is too narrow for a car and restripin

Your point is exactly why I say turn over the right hand lane over to the cyclists. It's not enough to allow cars and cyclists to share the lane on a multilane road because the car will just push the cyclists around. If you ban cars from the right hand lane, the cyclists can complain to the police over any drivers illegally in the lane - but by allowing parking on the right and even restriping to add more space to the lane to the left and narrowing the right-hand lane more on wide lanes, you can keep the cars out pretty effectively.

[Lib Grrrrl]

109. and How Are You Going To Navigate Your Bike

around a fucking sea of parked cars??

[NastyDiaper]

79. Live close to where you work, and shop.

Some good ideas here and I agree with the goal.

Prong 6: Support urban renewal, Fight exburb and big-box development.

[Lib Grrrrl]

84. OK, A Good Sixth Prong

Again, not workable for everyone...but a good addition. some people can work that sixth prong into their own formula.

The reason for offering as many prongs as I did is not so that everyone would utilize every single prong...but so that everyone would utilize two or thee of them...and collectively, this would solve the problem.

Obviously, everyone would choose the prongs that least inconvenienced them...or that were workable, given their own situation.

But, as you can see, there are many small solutions that, taken together...and used where applicable, CAN solve the problem without hurting anyone, or unduly inconveniencing anyone.

Obviously, my plan is not perfect, either...obviously, it would need some fine-tuning...and my statistics may be open for adjustment.

STILL...it's a hell of a start...and, given the six prongs now...even very conservatively, I see no reason why the six-pronged approach couldn't EASILY reduce demand by at least 50 percent...if not more!

[recoveringrepublican]

103. Are you now going to pay for daycare for my family?

would love to live like that, but my family can't afford daycare, well we COULD, but it would defeat the purpose of my working. I work overnight so my kids won't be in daycare.

[Lib Grrrrl]

110. LOL - Just Another Point I Made To The O.P.

thanks!!

His idea needs to get slapped down...HARD. Because it sucks.

[Philosoraptor]

104. Good ideas. Now about those lawn mowers...

Those are real and practical ideas, and I think developing electric lawn mowers would help.

Also, make Bush stop traveling on air force one and legislate from the mansion.

[Lib Grrrrl]

112. ????

If you think the O.P. had ANY idea that was good....

The whole of his plan cokmpletely sucked, because it took into account the needs of no one but his own self.

[rman]

111. Postponement of the inevitable, not a real solution.

Not to say that it's a bad plan (many European countries had "car-less sundays" during the oil crisis in the 70's) - but it would have to be part of a larger plan that offers real solutions.

[Lib Grrrrl]

113. Read My Five-Pronged Approach

it's now six prongs, because someone added another good one.

THAT is the way to begin to address the problem.

[rman]

117. looks like a good start, more to add:

# Focus on local production, not production where labor is cheapest.
Most of the stuff that most people in the wealthy nations buy is produced in 3rd world nations and is transported over large distances to reach the "consumer". Most of that stuff can be produced more locally, saving immense amounts fuel.

# Make products more durable.
Most utilities can be made to last for decades, instead of having them break down after a few years and it being cheaper to buy a new one then to have it repaired. It saves resources in production and transportation.

# Stop going to war to get resources.
War is probably the most wasteful activity that man has ever come up with. Not going to war saves huge amounts of resources -and- frees up large amounts of money to invest in more useful projects, such as...

# ...development and deployment of durable energy sources (primarily solar, hydro, wind). Biodiesel is fine, but not the most efficient use of solar energy. Especially for houses, direct solar-electric and solar-thermal energy can be much more efficient. Hydrogen is far more energy-dense then biodiesel. The technology is there but it needs to be improved and it needs to be deployed.


Needles to say that most of these will be opposed by the large corporations that now profit from inefficient use of resources. Their being very efficient in use of labor (which to them is just another resource) also is not in our interest. Their idea of "efficiency" includes having the cheapest possible labor.

[Lib Grrrrl]

126. Yep...And You Have Hit The Nail Dead-On

the items you suggested are great...and will never be implemented, because they work against the profit of the powers that be.

They don't want local production, because they want to cut labor costs. They will spend whatever it takes in transport costs in order to screw workers. always have, and always will.

Durable products are not in the best interests of manufacturers, either. General Electric would prefer that you buy a new washer from them every five years than have you buy one every twenty years. GE makes no money when you have an old appliance repaired!

I like your ideas...but the only one that really stands a chance of being implemented is
# ...development and deployment of durable energy sources (primarily solar, hydro, wind).
And even then...only if those already on the inside can first figure out how to get their hand in the cookie jar.

[xmas74]

120. Can't do the Sunday thing.

I work in human service-group homes for the mentally challenged. We are open 24 hours a day,7 days a week. Someone has to be there to assist them in their homes.

[Lib Grrrrl]

127. Of Course You Can

you can walk there on your knuckles, and drag yourself along with your tnongue, as far as the OP gives a darn! :sarcasm:

[xmas74]

129. I don't think the OP wants to punish a group of women

who are not able to take care of themselves.

He's trying to find some solutions, as we all are. I've read this entire thread-good ideas here and there but we need yet more ideas to really find a viable solution to the entire problem.

[Lib Grrrrl]

130. I Think The OP Does Not Care

as long as it does not negatively impact HIM...he's okay with anything.
I honestly do not believe he cares about the negative impact on anyone else. I don't get any sense of that from him.

Enough people have chided him on his rotten idea of no driving days...and why it won't work...has he backed off or apologized, or shown one whit of consideration for anyone else? NOPE!!!

[xmas74]

134. I just hate attacking people.

We know the idea won't work.

I just see it as a brainstorming activity. Sometimes you throw out less-than desirable outcomes to come up w/ the feasible plans.

[Lib Grrrrl]

131. That Is The Whole Point

there is no "one size fits all" answer. THE ANSWER is going to have to be a multi-pronged approach, where people actively participate in those prongs in which they are able to do so conveniently. Then, with all those things working collectively...and no one forced into a situation that causes them undue hardship...we can collectively have an impact.

[xmas74]

135. Thank you for participating.

Maybe your plan will not work. But maybe it will help someone else come up w/ a plan that is much easier to implement that will not cause undue hardship.

[Lib Grrrrl]

137. Well, Again

I believe that there is no one magic solution. It's going to require a lot of little things that, taken together, will add up to a lot. And it will have to be done in such a way as to not put undue inconvenience or hardship on people if it is going to work.

I think my five-pronged approach is a good place to start...certainly, some of the points I have come up with are feasible, workable, and able to be implemented almost immediately.

Obviously, I don't believe I have the whole answer, either...but the things I have suggested can be a part of the solution.

As can the sixth prong offered up by another astute poster...and some other ideas that big business might hate, but WOULD work...offered up by yet another astute poster.

We have some really intelligent people here on DU.

[xmas74]

138. That's why I love this place.

Most of the time we can come here, share ideas and get constructive feedback.

Don't you wish that you could find places like this in the real world?

[Ksec]

121. We could also drop the gas guzzlers.

I mean its fine if your wasting doesnt affect everyone else, but it does.

[Lib Grrrrl]

128. I Agree

no one needs to be driving General Patton's tank all over suburbia. I mean, when I see some of these 90-pound women virtually needing a ladder to get into these behemoths, it cracks me up!

It's almost as funny as seeing one of these damn SUV's in a ditch, kicking up it's little wheels! I mean, I don't want anyone to get hurt, but the only good SUV is a dead SUV.