Plan to reduce global warming calls for higher cost of driving (23 cents/mile rush-hour tax)

[Newsjock]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

If the Bay Area is to make a real contribution to the fight against global warming, it will require an aggressive program to discourage solo vehicle commuting, along with improvements in fuel economy and a new development paradigm that puts people near jobs and public transit, Bay Area leaders were told Friday.

Those ideas, which include a pricing package that increases the per-mile cost of driving during peak hours were contained in a proposed framework for a regional transportation plan to take the Bay Area to 2035.

... Probably the most controversial component will come from making motorists pay for their contributions to rush-hour congestion.

Those contributions would total five times what the average motorist now pays to drive to work. They would come in three forms: A gas tax that would average 23 cents a mile, tolls to enter congested areas paid electronically through FasTrak and parking surcharges levied during peak congestion times.

"It's designed to scare the dickens out of every elected official in the room," Heminger quipped to the gathering of leaders from all over the nine-county Bay Area.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7294674?nclick_check=1

[mike_c]

1. ultimately, this is just about the only thing that will get Americans...

...out of single user vehicles. We also need to stop strapping engines to individual freight loads for long distance transport.

[Occulus]

9. Your last sentence implies mass transit of some sort

Tsk, tsk. The oil companies and auto makers will not be pleased with you...

[AndyTiedye]

2. Meanwhile They are CUTTING BACK Public Transportation

The trolley that used to run every 10 minutes now runs only twice an hour.
BART has been cut back in San Mateo county.
Busses have been cut back.

Ridership is increasing, yet they are cutting back.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. And raising fares.

The exact opposite from a strategy to encourage public transit use.

The biggest problem with mass transit in the bay area IMHO is the balkanization of transit authorities. For example, the convoluted agreement between SamTrans and BART created more problems than it addressed. BART scheduling of SFO trains was hampered by the negotiated deal with SamTrans on how to serve San Mateo county. I'll benefit from the BART change because part of the deal is that BART will be able to run more direct trains to SFO from the East Bay, something that should have been done in the first place.

[Le Taz Hot]

56. OK, I can't help myself here.

I just have to interject that FRESNO (you know, the place you Bay Areans love to trash) is actually INCREASING the number of routes. The fare stays the same (bus pass: $35.00/month for unlimited rides) AND the new Senior 7 program now lets those 65 and older ride for free, 7 days a week. The two downtown buses are free M-F.

OK, I'm done bragging. ;-)

[defendandprotect]

91. Rather than returning to mass transportation . . . they are serving oil interests --

We can gradually fold the suburbs and return to open lands and farmlands --

All we need is solar and wind energy -- and ELECTRIC CARS --

We have to take back control of our natural resources -- why do a few private families control our oil????

[JerseygirlCT]

119. OK, THAT makes no sense at all

Why would they do that?

[bluestateguy]

3. The upper-middle class and rich people will just pay the taxes and keep on driving as usual

Otherwise this tax will only hurt working people. Public transportation is not convenient for everybody, though I strongly favor investment in mass transit and making it as convenient as possible for as many people as possible.

[seriousstan]

4. Let the sweaty mobs ride mass transit. I can still afford to drive alone.

Just a new tax.

[silverojo]

25. You're being sarcastic, I hope? n/t

[Zhade]

69. That's an excellent summation of how some assholes will respond to this.

NT!

[Mark E. Smith]

5. Heh. The same sorts of folks who are using eminent domain ..

.. to seize the homes of retired and otherwise powerless people in order to build condos near
mass transportation lines in hopes of coercing people into using something other than their
cars.

This kind of thing is becoming quite an issue here in California, with its advocates enjoying
a popularity rivaling cancer.

In Southern California the quasi-governmental shitheads in charge of doing this is called by
its delightful and somewhat appropriate acronym SCAG. SCAG claims to be involved in world
saving work, but has now been exposed as being little more than an appendage of the
Building Trades Lobbies in Sacramento.

Yeah Democrats, let's get on the wrong side of this issue. Who knows, maybe we could turn
California Republican!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Oh you poor, poor drivers

God forbid that you should have to share your space with what you seem to see as lesser human beings, that you not be able to try to arouse the envy of others as you drive past in your over-priced vehicle, or that you suffer a moment of inconvenience just to reduce greenhouse gases.

After all, it's only the fate of the planet at stake.

If there's anything that frosts me, it's people who DELIBERATELY move out to the suburbs to subdivisions that force them to drive everywhere and then have the nerve to complain about traffic--which is generated by THEMSELVES and other people who are foolish enough to live in the exurbs, who are so besotted with the "American Dream" of home ownership that they'll sacrifice everything for it.

Isn't there a logical disconnect occurring somewhere?

[Mark E. Smith]

16. Thank God we live in a country ...

... where folks like you are marginalized.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Marginalized?

Only in Libertarian circles.

While small, we alternative transportation types are actually growing, especially among younger people.

And it's still about the fate of the planet and people making choices that put them in (literally) tight spots.

Traffic jams are a self-inflicted form of punishment for following the brainwashed herd.

[Mark E. Smith]

22. Yeah you're right. Everyone loves Eminent Domain

And Soviet/Nazi style centralized planning and social engineering is a real
crowd pleaser as well.

Marginalized might have been too kind. Flying with the fruit bats is more
like it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Libertarians will be the death of us

with their bratty "I want my shiny toys no matter what" attitude.

Selfishness is superficially more attractive than a sense of community--until you need the community.

For various reasons, I'm currently living in a city with mediocre public transit. Until four years ago, I lived in a city with excellent public transit (and not one Nazi or Soviet on the city council). I've also lived in Tokyo, which probably has the best mass transit in the world, and traveled in Europe.

Guess where I felt most free. I was certainly financially most free without the damned car. The car is a hand-me-down, but with gas, insurance, repairs, and license fees, I have $3000 less in disposable income than I did before.

I had more fun riding the bus and light rail than I ever did driving, and the light rail never got stuck in traffic. I never had to worry about parking or insurance or repairs or the price of gas. Most days, I didn't have to look at ugly suburban strip mall-scapes. Walking a lot, I had no trouble maintaining my weight.

If that makes me a fruit bat, I'll fly over and help myself to some apples. :7

[silverojo]

26. Not everyone can use mass transit

I, for one, have fibromyalgia so bad that we had to shop long and hard to find a car with seats that didn't cause me agonizing pain. I highly doubt that the local bus service will go to that length to accomodate me.

Also, I can't manage the walk to get TO the bus stop in the first place...let alone get off the bus and walk to my destination, do grocery shopping, carry groceries (when even carrying my PURSE is painful), go back to the bus, get off the bus, and walk home again.

It's real easy for you healthy people to piss on those of us who are disabled.

And even if you're healthy, how are you going to bring younger kids along on a shopping trip? Most buses I've seen aren't equipped with child safety seats. And again, how's Mom supposed to carry a baby, watch her other kid(s) closely, AND lug a family's worth of groceries home?

Oh, that's right--YOU don't have kids, so you don't care.

If mass transit works for you, great. There are those of us who can't use it, AND are careful about our driving habits by combining trips, etc., so as to save fuel.

The solution isn't for everybody to be forced to live as you do. The solution is for our government to put funding into research and USE of alternative fuels, instead of pumping billions into an illegal war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I agree that some people CAN'T use mass transit, but a lot more can who only

THINK they can't.

Where I lived in Portland, there were buses coming down the main street (Burnside) running from the West Hills to downtown every 15 minutes, every 8 minutes during rush hour. I'd stand at the bus stop at 8AM or so, and during the wait between buses, the entire traffic stream would be made up of lone drivers, about half of them in SUVs.

As for the small children, not really a problem. I see people with babies and small children and groceries riding the bus (and in Portland, I saw them riding the train) all the time. As long as the children are well-behaved enough to sit for the duration of the ride (which 99% of them are), they actually LIKE riding the bus or train and sometimes don't want to get off. Why shouldn't the kids like it? It's more fun than being strapped into the back seat of a car.

People would tell me that they could never ride the bus or train because it was "too much trouble." But two of their favorite topics of conversation were 1) how long they were stuck in traffic, and 2) how far away they had to go to find a parking place.

And I still maintain that it's criminal negligence to continue building suburban sprawl in the patterns that have prevailed since the late 1940s when we KNOW that these patterns FORCE people to drive, destroy valuable agricultural land and wildlife habitat, and create soulless wildernesses of strip malls and parking lots McMansions that people are brainwashed into believing to be the American Dream.

(Yes, "brainwashed." I've seen friends and relatives go into the "must build house in exurbs" mode, and then when they finally move into their "dream house," they realize that they can't even buy a carton of milk without a two-mile drive, that their commuting time has doubled, that the "countryside" they've come to enjoy is rapidly being swallowed up by other houses, that the "good schools" they hoped to find are "good" only in having newer buildings, and that their kids have to be chauffeured everywhere. But by then it's too late.)

[Odin2005]

43. I'd rather live in a small 1BR condo in the city center then in some exurban McMansion.

You are totally right that the only reason people want a big house with a big lawn in the 'burbs is because that is what people are told they are supposed to want, it's pathetic.

[AndyTiedye]

45. There Are Other Reasons for Wanting a House and a Yard

To have a garden
To have pets and give them a place to go outside
So the kids can have a place to play
To be able to see the stars
To be able to look at green stuff instead of cement
Quiet

[OnionPatch]

120. Thank you!

You may just as soon shoot me as corral me up in some tiny apartment in the noisy, dirty city, and if that makes me a "bad liberal" ....Oh well.

[AndyTiedye]

48. Do You Know Where Those Cars are Coming From or Going to?

Where I lived in Portland, there were buses coming down the main street (Burnside) running from the West Hills to downtown every 15 minutes, every 8 minutes during rush hour. I'd stand at the bus stop at 8AM or so, and during the wait between buses, the entire traffic stream would be made up of lone drivers, about half of them in SUVs.

How many were just coming down Burnside and parking downtown? If Burnside is like most "main drags", it would have mostly commerical property along it, not housing.
If the buses just run down Burnside, then they would have to take 2 or 3 buses from a residential neighborhood (assuming such buses even exist), or else find parking near a bus stop.

Looks to me like quite a few would be coming off of 405 (or getting onto it, if your reference point is west of there). Do buses come/go that way or would they have to do it all on surface streets?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Yes

As Burnside goes into the West Hills (four blocks from where I used to live and west of I-405), the topography and the existence of Forest Park ensure that the potential land for housing narrows considerably. Most residents there live within two or three blocks of Burnside. In fact, when I was car-free in Portland, I used to take the #20 to visit people who lived there. I'd get off the bus and walk no more than two or three blocks to their house.

A new housing development was built off the bus route, and the Metro Council allowed it only on the condition that the developer provide a shuttle van service during rush hours, because Burnside was already crowded. I'd see the shuttle bus, too, and I never saw it with more than one or two people in it.

It was sad to see so much car dependency in a city that has such good public transit. It was hopeful, however, to see that car-free living was growing more popular by the time I left. In 1993, I was considered a weirdo for giving up my car. By the time I left in 2003, I knew five other people who were car-free, and when people found out that I was, they were curious about the logistics of it rather than scornful.

[AndyTiedye]

49. Most Suburban Distances Can be Done by Bicycle or Bicycle+Transit

can't even buy a carton of milk without a two-mile drive

2 miles is just a short hop on a bicycle. (assuming it isn't mpls in winter, anyway)

We had a store 3/4 of a mile away, which I consider walking distance. It closed down and got converted to office space.

Now it's 7 miles each way to the nearest store. Still bikeable.

If it had winters like MPLS I'd probably look at a velomobile.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. There's a flip side to what you are saying.

First, let me offer my condolences for your fibromyalgic condition and understand, I am not minimizing your experience. But what I wanted to say was that, in my experience (I ride the city bus all the time), if it weren't for the bus, MANY of our poor and/or disabled citizens would not have the freedom of mobility they have. Thank the goddess we have an excellent public transportation system here that reaches most areas of the city.

Your point about children and lack of child safety seats (or seatbelts) is an absolutely valid one.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Yes, that's exactly right about the disabled

One of the saddest things about the Twin Cities transit system is that its mediocrity makes life extra difficult for the disabled, especially the paralyzed and the blind and those with seizure disorders.

Nearly every time I ride the bus, someone in a wheelchair or carrying a white cane is riding, too.

If I ever lost my sight or became paralyzed, I think I'd move back to Portland, simply because the transit system runs more places more often.

[Al Federfer]

34. As I understand libertarianism...

It isn't about "I want my shiny toys no matter what". From my reading, libertarianism is all about not forcing people to do things. Of course, I may be underthinking it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. That's only half the libertarian credo

It includes not forcing people to do things even if it's for the public good and being absolutely selfish with one's resources.

It boils down to feudalism.

There is NO public sphere in the ideal libertarian world, just privatization. If you can't afford it, you don't get it, period, unless some rich person decides to donate it to you.

It's the Victorian era all over again, only without the uptightness about sex. (The Victorians were mostly okay with drugs.)

If you think the Republicans are too nice to poor and other vulnerable people and to the environment, you'll love libertarianism.

[Odin2005]

55. Liberarianism boils down to "I've got mine, fuck everyone else."

[Al Federfer]

60. Who defines what the "public good" is?

In other words, who decides who gets forced to do what? The answer is easy: whoever is in power decides what the "public good" is. Cheney/Bush have decided that the Iraq war is for the "public good". You may have a different priority, but are you just as willing to use force as they are?

And who decides who is "selfish", and should have their property taken away? Again, whoever is in power. I dislike feeling like I'm always under somebody's thumb, don't you?

I'm not a libertrian scholar, but from what I gather, practical libertarians acknowledge that some things should be administered by government. I think the general idea is that people can handle their lives better than self-serving strangers can. Kind of hard to argue with, but like I say, maybe I'm underthinking it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Let me guess, you're middle class, have been all your life, and

either studied or are majoring in business in college. You've been indoctrinated with Milton Friedman's economics, even if it wasn't labeled as such.

Who decides what the public good is?

According to libertarian philosophy, the ONLY legitimate functions of government are the military and the criminal justice system, in other words, the repressive arms of society, the very ones that the Republicans like.

Education, health care, utilities, roads, parks, libraries, fire protection, safety inspections, provision for the poor--if someone can't make money off of it or feel moved to provide it out of the goodness of their heart (which wouldn't happen often in a libertarian society, because the people at the top would preach selfishness), it shouldn't exist, say the libertarians. There would be no minimum wage or health or safety standards, because, the libertarians say, workers can just quit if they don't like their working conditions.

Only a person who has always been comfortable can make that last statement with a straight face.

Even more illiterate people because the poor keep their children out of school to work? Epidemics because the poor don't get health care? More crime, because people can't live on what they're earning and their boss hires thugs to bust up attempts at union organizing? Poor people not getting rescued by the fire department because they can't pay for privatized fire protection? Merchants selling outdated or substandard food with impunity? No problem! As long as the rich bastards get to keep their holy and sacred Property.

For real-life applications of this philosophy, see most of the Third World.

[Al Federfer]

81. Actually, I grew up relatively poor and dropped out of college...

I certainly understand why you see the military and the criminal justice systems as repressive. I see them that way today myself, especially under the hideous Bush regime. The thing is, it doesn't have to be that way. If government was confined to the function of protecting the rights of individuals, not of special interests and of government itself, we would see the institutions you mention as our allies, not our enemies. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

You go into a list of topics that take a lot of discussion. Let me just say that I have known a few libertarians, some for more than 40 years, and they are definitely not selfish. They just have a different outlook about how certain things should be done. They've always done right by me. Trustworthy on the whole, I think.

[The Backlash Cometh]

124. That is the answer you'd get from an MBA type. Only corporations change

when the CEO is changed. The USA should be able to resist extreme change because there are several critical jobs which were suppose to remain apolitical. But since Bush came in and politicized them, suddenly we see the emergence of strange beings. Like greedy Christians, or Americans who are showing very little compassion to their fellow man. Why does that matter? Because, without having a unified concept of greed and selfishness, it means that someone will eventually take advantage of their position, and when that happens, the public trust is lost, and when that happens, our communities begin to erode and you will slowly find people being disconnected from everything that once held us together as a nation.

I suppose when that happens, only the Libertarians and anarchists will be happy.

[LanternWaste]

129. Public good-- like healthcare, the WPA,

"hoever is in power decides what the "public good" is." As do the people of this country. We all have a stake- we all have a say.


Public good-- like healthcare, the WPA, food. Common sense things.

[Odin2005]

42. Libertarian, n. 1. A Moran who does not understand the notion of the Tragedy of the Commons.

I use the city bus to get to work every day, I have to, because I can't drive in city traffic drive because I have poor eye-hand coordination and because my right eye is twitchy and hard to focus. Since I am a college student I get to use the city buses for free, much better then paying for gas and car insurance. Also, since I live in downtown Fargo-Moorhead I'm pretty much in walking distance of most everything I would need on a regular basis.

[dysfunctional press]

126. n. 2. a republican who enjoys recreational drugs.

nt

[AndyTiedye]

46. But I Want them to Stay Shiny

"I want my shiny toys"

But they won't stay shiny if I drive them into the city every day.

Then they tend to get dented, battered and worn out.

[LanternWaste]

110. As is the unsung

"And Soviet/Nazi style centralized planning and social engineering is a real crowd pleaser as well."

As is the unsung libertarian mantra of "Individual Good at the Expense of Common Good-- Regardless..."

[LanternWaste]

128. Eminent Domain worked pretty well for the TVA...

Eminent Domain worked pretty well for the TVA...

I think the American people are beginning to realize concepts such as 'common good' aren't just for the Soviets. We've had some pretty good central planning gems such as the WPA that helped a lot of people.

You think those who are pushing for Public Mass transit have been marginalized? Not anymore. Not in America, at least...

[NickB79]

37. Yeah, thank God we marginalize people trying to stop global warming

Those bastards, always trying to prevent the deaths of billions over the next century......

[Mark E. Smith]

40. If you think leveling suburbs and building condos in their place..

.. is going to make one iota of difference, then I have a basket of
golden shit for you to buy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. If it reduces driving, it will slow global warming

We're past the point of no return, I fear, but slowing the rise will make all the difference in the world in terms of finding adaptations.

That "The hell with future generations, I'm gonna live LARGE!" attitude is just an extension of what I used to see all the time in college frat rats and jocks, emotional immaturity, lack of empathy, and a sense of entitlement.

[AndyTiedye]

102. Some of the Houses Would Likely Get Split Up Into Condos

[NickB79]

79. The suburbs are dead no matter what you want to believe

With Peak Oil advancing every day, modern-day suburbs will become the new ghettos in the next decade as the middle class collapses in the face of economic recession.

Save that basket of golden shit and use it to buy some gardening tools and a small plot of land so you don't die of malnutrition after we enter the 2nd Great Depression.

[AndyTiedye]

115. At Least those in Suburbs/Exurbs Have Some Land for a Garden

They'll lose the lawns (and nobody will really miss them) and put their yards to much better use.

[Clanfear]

61. Over-population is a bigger problem

Perhaps thinning the herd would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

[LanternWaste]

109. I'm afraid the marginalization...

I'm afraid the marginalization of the Environmentally Conscious has been tried and failed. Conservation and responsible energy use is becoming conventional wisdom.

Pardon me if I don't share the gas-guzzlers indignation at being ridiculed.

[AndyTiedye]

27. Seems to Me You Both Have Valid Points Here

Though it is necessary to dig through a lot of condescending crud (from both of you) to get to them.

Mark E. Smith wrote:

using eminent domain to seize the homes of retired and otherwise powerless people in order to build condos near mass transportation lines

Lydia, you make some valid comments about the goodness of taking public transportation, but it does rather beg the question, "what happens to the people who have to move out so that I can live near transit?"
Many of them are being forced to move out of the city. Nothing to do with "the American dream of home ownership", just being priced out of the city. Most end up in apartments in the 'burbs, served barely or not at all by public transportation. Due not so much to eminent domain as to market forces, housing near transit has become quite expensive. These unwilling suburbanites probably can't afford a reasonably fuel-efficient car either. An old gas guzzler that burns oil may be all their budget will allow, the rising cost of gasoline is already squeezing them, and this tax would be a nightmare to them.

In many cases it would be possible drive to a transit station. That would considerably reduce the impact of high as prices as you woudn't be driving as far. If the tax is actually a congestion charge similar to what they use in London, it could be avoided in this way.

Often, meeting transit part way is the best we can do, because there simply isn't that much public transport in the USA, and if everybody tried to move to the places that have it, they would become horribly expensive. Many of them already are.

I had more fun riding the bus and light rail than I ever did driving, and the light rail never got stuck in traffic.

I like trains, and light rail is trainlike enough. Most of the light rail around here runs on streets, so it can get stuck in traffic. The underground portions of the SF Muni are not subject to this, of course, but their trains often get held up in the surface portions (M-Stonestown seems particularly vulnerable to this, and when the cars do come they are incredibly crowded. You have ridden on the Tokyo transit. I hear they hire people to push as many people into the cars as possible. Is that even more crowded?).

BART is pretty good, but they have severely cut back their recently-introduced service in northern San Mateo county, this after the county cut back all other transit service in the county to pay for BART!

Caltrain doesn't get much attention but they have actually been adding trains in recent years while other services have been cutting back.

When I worked in San Francisco, I usually took Caltrain.

Buses, on the other hand, are not my idea of a good time. I'd like them better if their engines were better-maintained so they didn't smell so much. They would also burn much less fuel.
Better still is electric power, as long as it has with better speed control (or better drivers) than on the SF Muni trollybuses. (it really HURT when that 200 pound woman wearing spike heels lost her balance right in front me).

I eventually got sufficiently fed up with SF Muni that I rented a bike locker at the train station and kept a beater 10-speed there to get between the station and my office.



People don't live in suburbs/exurbs because they like to drive everywhere. We do it because we simply aren't "wired" for city living. I think it's really a neurological phenomenon.
America has been attracting people like this since the first colonies were founded. Many of our ancestors came here because they needed more space. I do better where there are more trees than people.
That said, I'm not particularly fond of driving — riding a train is way less stressful, and I'm willing to meet the transit partway, especially if it allows me to avoid a lot of traffic.
When I had a job in San Francisco, I rode a motorcycle to the Caltrain station most days.

I still live in the mountains, but I telecommute now.

I am attempting to reduce my dependency on the automobile further.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. The Tokyo transit system is crowded during rush hour

but at other times, you can always get a seat.

The best things about the Tokyo system are that it's multi-modal (surface trains, buses, subways), mostly built with public money, but some lines are built by (get this) suburban land developers.

As for the question of housing prices, this may be a misperception.

People would hear about how much I was paying for rent in my apartment near downtown Portland, and they'd say, "You could get a better apartment for $200 less if you lived in (name of one of the few suburban neighborhoods not well served by transit)," and I'd say, "Yes, but I'd spend that much per month running and maintaining a car, AND I'd be isolated."

The answer is to lobby for two things, and this is one area where the Democratic leadership is failing to even mention crucial social problems:

1) Affordable housing near where people work. This is an issue not only in cities, but also in resort areas.

2) Working towards a society where no one living in a metropolitan area actually NEEDS a car. Tokyo is there, Portland is getting close. (Incidentally, building transit systems would create living-wage blue collar jobs.)

[AndyTiedye]

36. Yet Despite Tokyo's Comprehensive Transit System, Car Use is Reported to be Increasing There

and the same seems to be happening in many other places.

It isn't just an American phenomenon.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. The typical Tokyo car owner uses it strictly as a status symbol

They keep the car in their driveway and use it mostly on weekend jaunts. There are also a few outer suburbs where, sadly, big box stores have made an inroad. One of my American friends who lived in Japan for many years lived in an outer outer suburb of Tokyo that had stores and a train station in walking distance of her place, but she said that many of her neighbors bought cars so that they could go to Costco and Toys R' Us. They sure didn't need them otherwise. :eyes:

80% of all trips are still by transit.

[Zhade]

70. Hey, I'd *love* to be able to take public transit.

However, you my know the history of PT in Los Angeles and how it was systematically dismantled by the likes of GM/DuPont/Goodyear/etc - the bus I need runs once an hour. If I miss it, or the driver isn't on schedule, I'm fucked.

It's not productive to lay the blame entirely on us CA drivers.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

97. you tell em girl!

:thumbsup:

[Al Federfer]

33. There is something in what you say...

I'm all in favor of good mass transit (I live in the SF Bay Area and take BART whenever it is practical) but like almost everything else, the process and programs are subject to endless corruption and cronyism. If it can be manipulated for gain, it will be.

Sometimes is seems like mass transit proponents want us all to live stacked upon one another, in warrens next to the railroad tracks. I don't want to live like that.

[AndyTiedye]

39. Nothing new about that

I'm all in favor of good mass transit (I live in the SF Bay Area and take BART whenever it is practical) but like almost everything else, the process and programs are subject to endless corruption and cronyism. If it can be manipulated for gain, it will be.

The original "Robber Barons" bought up railroads and ran them into the ground.
They detested passenger service as it was less profitable than freight, so they allowed it to deteriorate.
This no doubt contributed considerably to the rapid adoption of the automobile in the USA.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. And it WOULDN'T be manipulated for gain under a privatized system?

:eyes:

[Al Federfer]

76. "Privatized" doesn't mean free from Govt. influence...

Far from it. Yes, I should have used a better word than "manipulated", but you get my drift.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Whenever I meet up with Libertarians, either in person or on discussion boards,

I find myself wishing that they could have a state to themselves where all their selfish, callous policies were put into effect. It would be a jungle of social darwinism.

Or they could just go to El Salvador and see their political philosophy in action.

[LanternWaste]

113. Mass transit was an efficient and viable option...

Mass transit was an efficient and viable option that more people than not used in the 30's, 40's and 50's. I don't think too many people lived in "warrens next to the railroad tracks".

[AndyTiedye]

50. The Biggest Use of Eminent Domain is for Building Roads

[toopers]

6. The bigger problem is the employers . . .

You are going to have to force the employers to change their habits. Even companies like AT&T discourage telecommuting within their own ranks, though they push it in their advertising.

[w4rma]

8. Telecommuting only means they can outsource your job to another country. (nt)

[Occulus]

10. Telecommuting is only useful for jobs which carry no actual work

I don't consider sitting on your ass "making decisions" all day long to be work of any sort. I do work, and backbreaking, manual work at that.

Corporate schmucks don't "work". They "decide" instead. Yet- whose jobs are getting outsourced?

Naw, I'm not bitter.......

[toopers]

12. Unfortunately, I sit on my ass but I do not get to make decisions . . .

I support decision makers. Sorry about your bitterness but I guess I am one of those "corporate schmucks" that you despise.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Engineering isn't "Work"?

And yes, a lot of it has been outsourced, but not all of it.

I think the plummeting dollar will put an end to outsourcing soon.

[DavidMS]

19. You are...

I support some teleworkers and most of what they do is process data, write up what they found and eventually it all goes into drug research (you can put your screed against the evil drug/pharma/medical devices companies here). Its not easy work intellectually, the deadlines are tight and the hours are long. All of it eventually leads to improved quality of life and more effective treatments for everyone.

[Zhade]

71. I work in satellite broadcasting, sitting on my ass all day - so I don't work?

There's all kinds of work, man - mine just happens to be mental. I mess up at the wrong time, a million people get angry.

[OnionPatch]

122. Another schmuck here.

Gee, I didn't know the hours of research and management I do every day wasn't work. :shrug: It really feels like work to me although I have done plenty of manual labor in my life. (Try working in a blast furnace.) Still, I work pretty damn hard at my desk everyday.

[OnionPatch]

123. You are so right!

I think telecommuting would be great solution to so many of our troubles, carbon emissions being only one of them. (The most important one.) If more people were permitted to telecommute, it would ease traffic and wear and tear on our infrastructure. It would relieve urban sprawl because more people could live where they want instead of having to live in major cities and their bedroom communities. It might just revitalize some rural areas and small towns. It would also make it possible for people to care for their families more easily. It just makes way too much sense for corporate America.

[ohio2007]

7. this is another tax on the poor

working class that make minimum wage.
it's doomed to fail unless 'shift work' will shift start/finish times outside of the so called "rush HOUR"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Not if the tax is used to fund mass transit

:shrug:

[PittPoliSci]

18. it's still regressive to those in the middle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Not if the middle classes get over their snobbery and ride transit, like

middle class people in other countries.

[AndyTiedye]

23. If You Build Transit Like They Have in Other Countries, People Will Use It

BART gets plenty of middle-class riders in the areas that it serves.

Bus systems that run once an hour or two and take three hours to get you to work do not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Yes, if I were in charge of improving a bus/rail transit system

I would hire people living in each part of the metropolitan area, take away their car keys, and tell them to try to do everything that they normally do, only without a car.

For three months, they would have to cope with the existing system or non-system, any way they could, just as many people do: taking the bus or train, walking, bicycling, taking cabs, or just not going.

Once they got together and compared notes at the end of three months, I bet they'd design a superb transit system.

[Al Federfer]

35. As American society decays, mass transit becomes less palatable...

My experience, admittedly rife with generalizations, is just this: A large segment of people in America are far more rude, violent and drug-addled now than they were just twenty years ago. When you take mass transit, you find yourself right in the middle of this phenomenon. While riding BART, I've seen drunks vomit all over the seats...I've had an enraged crackhead demand directions from me...I've had to sit next to deranged babblers, wondering what their next crazed move might be, and how I might escape it. Some people are just plain filthy. Some will not cover their faces when they cough and sneeze. Some spit on the floor. Many have no concept of "personal space", or indeed of basic courtesy.

Others play loud music and eat smelly food, even though doing so is illegal. They don't care, and I have never seen anything done about it. Is it up to me to confront them, just to have a little peace?

Call me "elitist", but those are the facts. As the culture further decays, does anyone really think the mass transit experience is going to improve?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Anything that the middle class abandons BECOMES degraded

Too many middle class people are insecure about their own social position, so they abandon anything (a neighborhood, a school system, a transit system) that has any evidence at all of poor or dark-skinned people.

Anything that is considered exclusively for poor people (urban schools, urban infrastructure, social programs) becomes degraded because middle and upper class people don't want to pay for it.

On the whole, middle class people are cowards. They see one black family move into their neighborhood, and they start panic selling. They hear of one murder downtown, and they swear off going forever. They hear of a kidnapping, and they forbid their children to play outside. They hear of a terrorist attack in New York, and they give a president potentially dictatorial powers. It's all the same attitude.

I've ridden public transit in many cities, including Chicago, New York, Los Angeles (even the bus at night), San Francisco, pre-Katrina New Orleans, Boston, Minneapolis, Tokyo, London, Toronto, and Seattle, and I've never seen entire buses or train cars filled with criminals and louts. One or two per train car or bus on occasion. Most buses and train cars are filled with ordinary working stiffs, the backbone of this country, and if you think you're too good to travel with them, I feel sorry for you.

[Al Federfer]

59. The "middle class" isn't responsible for thugs and nuts on public transit...

The "middle class", most of which you evidently think are cowardly racists, are hard-working people who pay heavy taxes and just want to live their lives as best they can.

I too have traveled on mass transit systems in the US and abroad, and while it is the only practical solution in some urban areas, I much prefer driving my car. I think most people do. That doesn't make us "cowards".

Cheney/Bush and their corporatist pals are doing their best to grind the middle class out of existence. Why are you helping them by engaging in such hateful rhetoric? Do you, like them, really want a society comprised of only the rich and the poor? Or do you want a society where everyone is a gray shade of sameness?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. No, I want a society where people don't automatically assume that the

poor are thugs, and where there are no stereotypes for poor people to live down to.

The behavior that you decry is the behavior of people who have lost hope, not of people who are naturally degenerate. They are people whose parents and grandparents could have gotten living wage jobs with a high school or even eighth-grade education.

Then the rules changed, and nobody showed them how to keep up. Nobody is showing them how to keep up now. They are the casualties of the de-industrialization of America.

"Free" trade is anything but free.

[Zhade]

73. Oh, the irony. YOU'RE stereotyping the non-poor.

Hypocritical.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Huh?

:shrug:

I'm stereotyping the fat cats who blithely deindustrialized America without regard for the human casualties, thank you, as well as the middle class ninnies who think that poor people are scary.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, I'm not talking about you.

[Al Federfer]

82. So, let's just all be poor? n/t

[Al Federfer]

78. Come now, not all poor people are thugs...

And not all thugs are poor. We both know this.

My point was that the increasing lack of manners, civility, and education in America are making the prospect of depending more on mass transit a very unpleasant one. We can endlessly discuss the causes of this condition.

I grew up relatively poor in a rural area (no indoor plumbing) but I still have manners and consideration for others. Of course, I grew up long ago in a very different America...one where looking at the flag didn't make me depressed.

[Gormy Cuss]

111. I ride BART on a regular basis.

It's rare that I see anyone acting badly on BART. It's more common on MUNI but even there it's not that frequent except in the late evening. I saw it all in the many years that I rode on Boston's mass transit buses and trains but it was still a rare event. What I do notice is that people who use mass transit rarely are full of stories of smelly food and rude or drugged out people encounters. I'm a bit puzzled how that happens. It's almost as if some people are looking for reasons to justify avoiding mass transit.

[Zhade]

72. You're making a LOT of unspported assumptions.

For one, that everyone who doesn't take public transit is just a selfish snob.

Try educating yourself about the PT in, say, Los Angeles, then get back to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. I've ridden the public transit in Los Angeles

including the subway and the bus, including rides on both at night. I received assistance from an online friend who has lived car-free in LA for decades.

The experience wasn't the least bit scary, not even at night, although a local resident attending the same convention was horrified that I'd even walked outside at night. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I'd ridden the bus and subway from Fairfax to Pershing Square at about ten at night after having dinner and a neighborhood walk with said online friend.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I'm thinking if they're going to tax gas consumption, it should be based

on the MPG of the individual automobile, someone driving a Hummer should pay a premium over someone driving or riding a much more efficient means of transportation, as the Hummer contributes more to global warming.

[happyslug]

31. A tax on gasoline does that automatically

If I owned a Hummer that gets 1- mpg. I will pay more to fill up my car then someone with a 80cc Moped that gets 90mpg. In most cases the people will get to and from work at about the same time (What the Moped loses in speed do to its small engine, the Hummer loses do to traffic congestion).

In affect a tax on gasoline increases the operation cost of a Hummer (and all other cars, but the bigger the car the more you pay). IF you combine this with an engine size tax collected at the time of the sale of the Car, large cares will disappear and small cars will increase (as will SMALL motorcycles as while as Mopeds and Scooters).

Furthermore if someone truly needs a Hummer (Or large vehicle) the higher prices will increase the cost of operating such a vehicle, but such a person will still be able to get one. I can see a time in the near future where people own two to three cars. A Moped to go to and from work (Based on the fact people will try to keep their present homes) and a larger cars to take the family (and maybe an even larger truck to haul things to large for the car or moped). The last one may be rented instead of owned but it will still stay available.

Notice I ignored mpg per car, First mpg is affected by HOW you drive. If you stay under 50 mph on flat roads you will get what the EPA says you should. If you do NOT stay under 50 mph OR travel on hills your mileage will be less. This brings in two problems with mpg test, first is that people will buy cars that has high mpg standard and then drive them in ways the mpg standard is useless (At higher speeds, etc) and Second, it encourages car makers to set up their cars to max the test NOT real mileage (Which is already a problem with most cars getting much higher mileage at 50 mph do to their computer controls while at higher and lower speeds their mileage is less).

No a general tax on gasoline is best followed with an engine size tax. It is hard to change the basic size (and power and mileage) of an engine than any other part of the car.

[Uncle Joe]

38. I understand what you're saying, however

I believe there should be an additional premium, for out sized automobiles such as a Hummer, call it a luxury premium if you will, this could be an added tax when the vehicle is purchased. The MPG could be standardized for any new vehicle and the tax collected at the time of purchase.

Regarding engine size what if we make a leap in technology that results in larger engine with better gas mileage?

[happyslug]

44. If that happens, you an change the law, but engine technology is well known.

Basically you can NOT improve mileage to much given the modern Gasoline Engine. The gas turbine is more efficient, but only has two speeds, fast or off (Thus a hybrid with a gas turbine engine and a Flywheel promises to be a very efficient engine/electrical storage device combination ie.e. a hybrid).

As to conventional engines, the internal combustion engine has not changed in almost 100 years. Aluminum replaced some of the iron in the early engines, and modern electrical controls did what points and carburetors did just 20 years ago, but any other improvements is limited. diesel engines have not changed since just before WWI when they were invented (Again modern electrical controls improved them about 20 years ago). Now Germany is claiming improvements in Diesels, but this is at best improvements as to pollution compared to Mileage (i.e. Modern European diesels with modern fuels are as efficient as ever, but less polluting then they were 20 years ago). Now diesel engines are more expensive then gasoline engines, but are almost 200% rebuild-able unlike gasoline engines.

In both cases the key is energy usage. The internal combustion engine HAS to be made of a material that can take the heat of combustion (generally cast iron). That limits what you can do to improve the engine. Electronics can help, but more in how the fuel is used then inside the engine itself i.e. how you are driving and the engine working while you are driving (i.e. an attempt is being done to bring back the concept of 2-4-6-8 engines i.e. depending on what you need your engine uses 2 cylinders, or 4 or 6 or even 8 Cylinders as needed, if you do not need the extra power the extra cylinders are shu off, GM tried this 20 years ago, but it failed, but they is talk about it again do to the cut back in fuel usage do to cutting back the number of cylinders being used at any one time.

My point is are there ways to improve engine efficiency? Yes, but most are known (and many tried, even hybrids were tried before but mostly in the period about the time of the inventions of the Carburetor about 1900). The problem is these "new" technology depends on various items NOT yet invented. If they are invented the law can be changed to reflect the introduction of the new technology. Right now people are talking about how to improve the internal combustion engine, but people tend to be staying with the same old reliable gasoline engine (Even the Prius uses a conventional gasoline engine). If a new way to make an engine comes up, the law can be quickly change, but at the present time engine size relates to fuel usage more than any other factor and thus should be used. Horsepower comes from both engine size and other factors (Turbo Charges and Super Chargers improve Horsepowers of any engine) and as such a poorer indicated of fuel usage then engine size (Turbo Charging actually improve fuel economy with minimal power draw from the engine, while Super Charging gives much greater horsepower at the cost of a huge draw from the engine). Both can also improve fuel economy if the engine is small enough (i.e. a V-6 with a turbo charging gets better fuel economy then a V-8 did 30 years ago, while the actual power available to the driver is almost the same). Thus a horsepower tax has the ability to punish smaller engines with fuel economy add ons, while having no affect on large engines with poor fuel economy (horsepower may be the same in both).

All told the best would be a gasoline tax, combined with a tax on engine size. Additional taxes should be on horsepower enhancement devices that makes fuel economy worse (i.e. super charger IF USED ON A LARGE ENGINE, but not if the Super Charger is used to make a small engine capable of the work of a large engine). Remember one of the reasons cars are so large is to provide something strong enough (and thus heavy itself) to carry around the engine, the Transmission and even the fuel. If you can make the engine lighter, the transmission can be lighter and you do NOT need to have as big a fuel tank. Over the last 50 years it has been the technology of the car itself that has had the main affect on fuel economy. Better design (i.e. Coil springs replacing left springs) means smaller cars with as smooth a ride as a large car). Designing the car around Air Conditioning so the huge air drafts from the outside were no longer needed (the chief change between 1960s and 1970s era cars, making all cars smaller as seen from the Street, while keeping interior room about the same, if not larger)). These changes in the cars (along with Computerization of the Engine itself) has been the big fuel saving overs the last 30 years, NOT improvements in the actual engine Technology. I foresee this trend to continue as long as a tendency to smaller engines with better fuel mileage. A tax plan should reflect this change and a Gas Tax with a Engine size task looks like the best way Government can encourage this movement.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Thank you for your reply,

mechanics was never my strong suit, but I like to kick around ideas or concepts.

[CRF450]

99. Cant really just go by engine size though, it varies in different size vehicles

Look at cars like the Corvette. They now have 435hp in a 6.3 v8, and 505hp from a 7.0 v8. Both of which can reach 30mpg with a 6 speed on the highways/interstates, and they typically average in the low 20's with normall driving. Its the same deal with my Trans Am which has a 325hp LS1 5.7 v8. I'v reached 31mpg going 74mph on the interstate, these things are geared very tall so speeds under 65mph dont help. My dad's Crown Vic with a 190hp 4.6 v8 (though bigger and heavier) averages around 23 or 24mpg.

Bigger, heavier vehicles with a v8 gets terrible gas milage as we all know. My Dakota weighs close to 3 tons and I average around 16mpg. I havent seen what its highway milage is but it prolly the same as with what my brother's Dakota got, 21mpg.

[happyslug]

103. That is why the first text is a Gasoline tax, the engine size is secondary

The gasoline tax must be the first test, it forces people to buy lighter cars which have improved fuel economy (Or go in groups in larger vehicles, 10 people in a 5000 pound bus are getting better fuel mileage on a per person basis than 10 people traveling in 10 2000 pound cars).

While a fuel tax is the best way to improve fuel economy, we have to look at other things, like engine size, car size etc. Engine size is the single biggest factor when it comes to car size. It is hard to get a V-8 into a Prius size vehicle. Thus why I concentrate on Engine size more then horsepower. I remember reading in the 1970s an article (I can NOT remember if it was popular Mechanics or Popular Science) where the writer on Cars question to need for anyone to really need anything bigger then a 2.5 liter engine. If you restrict cars to 2.5 liter engines, everything else in the car can also be lighter. You can do 60 mph in a 2.5 liter engine of the 1970s, and do faster today given the adoption of Turbochargers. The key is the engine. It sets the size of the car.

Today, I question the need for anything over 2.0 liter. A 2.0 Liter engine can get a car with 4 people in it up to 65 mph is a reasonable time period. Given that most people travel only by themselves, 2.0 is sufficient. Horsepower difference between 2.0 liter engines are less important than the engine itself, thus the need for a engine size tax more than a horsepower tax. WIth a 2.0 liter engine, even if Supercharged, you are talking 30-40 mpg in normal driving. Without a Supercharging and keeping the speed down you can get better mileage (I once did 25 mpg in a 1982 Chevrolet 3/4 ton Pickup with a 350 ci, 5.5 liter, V-8, I did it by going about 25 mph in a flat interstate, normally I did about 12 mpg in that Truck).

My point is HOW to get Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles? A gasoline tax is first on the list, but you have to attack large inefficient vehicles. A tax on Engine Size does that better than a tax on Horsepower or even weight of the Vehicle.

[CRF450]

112. Thats the problem, not alot of people want an econo car.

As long as theirs a market for performance cars, SUV's, luxury cars, and trucks with big engines, auto makers will keep making them. Even I'll admit to it, I dont want an economy car. Sure hybrids are nice and all, but the current ones just dont appeal to me at all. And being a performance enthusiast, 4 cylinder engines are a NO for me.

I dont really plan on getting another car anytime soon. But if I do it'll probably be a G35 coupe.

[AndyTiedye]

47. Then It Probably Contributes Less to Global Warming

what if we make a leap in technology that results in larger engine with better gas mileage?

That is a good thing, surely. Burn less fuel, contribute less to global warming. That was the point of the exercise, as stated in the base note title.

Hybrid cars are like that. They get better mileage, and also qualify for ULEV or SULEV emissions ratings because they pollute much less.

[Nihil]

105. Thanks Slug for stating the obvious that people are missing!

> If I owned a Hummer that gets 1- mpg. I will pay more to fill up my car
> then someone with a 80cc Moped that gets 90mpg. In most cases the people
> will get to and from work at about the same time (What the Moped loses
> in speed do to its small engine, the Hummer loses do to traffic congestion).
>
> In effect a tax on gasoline increases the operation cost of a Hummer (and
> all other cars, but the bigger the car the more you pay). IF you combine
> this with an engine size tax collected at the time of the sale of the Car,
> large cars will disappear and small cars will increase...

:applause:

It's amazing how many supposedly intelligent people cannot grasp that a
tax on the consumption of a resource affects those who use a lot of that
resource more than those who already can't afford to do so.

How many of these "poor people who are being punished" drive Hummers to work?

Hell, how many of these "poor people who are being punished" live in the
suburbs anyway?

The people who will be most affected by this tax are the "I've got mine,
I'm not sharing and I don't give a shit about anyone else" crowd.

The wave of libertarians that appeared on this thread seem to be bleating
purely for themselves, not for any mythical "poor people being punished".
Even funnier is when libertarians complain about "poor people" being
affected by a petrol tax whilst whining that they "can't" use public
transport because of all the poor people who might spread their nasty
dirty habits to them.
:rofl:

Hypocrits!

[AndyTiedye]

116. Higher Gas Taxes Would be Good Public Policy, BUT

…Some provision should be made to make sure it does not cause undue hardship to those poor people who are not served by public transit.

Poor people are being forced out of the city in many cases due to the high cost of apartments there.

They would take public transport if they could, but often they can't.
They don't drive Hummers. Many of them do drive old Buicks or Chevys that get horrible mileage, because those are the only cars they can afford.

Another group that would be hard-hit by such a tax is farmers. They are reeling under the impact of drought and high fuel prices as it is.
Punitive taxes on large vehicles and engine size would not be appropriate on vehicles that deliver our food.

We will then need to make sure that those vehicles that get a break as farm vehicles are actually used for farming.

[CRF450]

117. But you cant really make that call though...

Their are so many other uses for trucks other than just farm work. I bought my Dodge Dakota truck mainly for summer work which is cleaning pools and spa's at the Outerbanks. But I'v used it for many other purposes like haulin my dirtbike to other places, including trails where I would need the 4x4 capability> Just last week I used it to move my dad's two camper trailers, one of them was 32 feet long and was pushing the Dakota's tow limit. Though dad has an S-10, theirs no way it can tow that trailer! But since the season for my summer job has ended, I'v driven it half the time compared to my car.

[Al Federfer]

32. Just another scheme to punish working people. n/t

[JCMach1]

51. I agree... I like my socialized roads!

and so does the whole darn economy...

There are proper ways to get people out of cars like PROPER CITY PLANNING!!! Of course, that takes politicians with vision and guts.

[MadHound]

52. Oh yay! Another regressive tax to burden the poor with, when they can least afford it

Not only are they paying more and more of their paycheck towards gas, but now another significant chunk will go to taxes while the rich and middle class will continue to pay and go:eyes: Sometimes I really wonder what party I'm in with all of this desire to punish the poor.

Rather than taxing the poor, tax the vehicle. Extra special property tax for those with SUVs and pickups that aren't farm vehicles. Got a fine little Mercedes there, pay for it. Use the money to beef up your public transit system. Switch your government vehicles to biodiesel.

But no, like many other issues, the solution seems to be to smack the poor around some more.

[Trillo]

68. If people didn't need to work, there'd be no "rush hour".

If all people could work at home, there's be no "rush hour".

In all cases I can think of, it seems that at a very minimum, costs to get to work should be deductible against employees' gross income, just as it is for the self-employed.

edit: In fact, for the working poor, all living costs, or what is today considered "personal" expenses, should be deductible, since their living seems to mostly benefit their employer.

[taught_me_patience]

74. Sound like they are using global warming

as an excuse for a new taxes. Now the rich will get to use the less congested roads while normal middle-class people will have to take mass transit. $.23/mile is completely and totally excessive.

[NickB79]

80. Have you ever calculated how much you pay per mile driving a car?

If you drive 15,000 miles per year, and your car averages 25 mpg (this is generous with all the SUV's and trucks out there), you burn 600 gallons of gas. At $3/gal, you spend $1800 per year on fuel. Car insurance for full coverage is usually about $1000/yr, and maintainance costs add a few hundred more into that figure. This all assumes your car is completely paid off; if not there's a few thousand more per year.

So add it all up, and the average American probably spends well over $3000 per year on simply driving, insuring and maintaining his/her car. That means he or she is ALREADY spending $0.20/mile as it is to drive. Factor in the cost of buying even a used car in decent condition, and mass transit at $0.23/mile is a pretty good deal.

[taught_me_patience]

83. The .$23/mile is on top of other costs

If it costs $.40/mile to normally operate a car, then taxing usage at $.23/mile raises the cost by over 50%! One expensive commute to work.

[NickB79]

84. The point of mass transit is to REPLACE a car

If you build a mass transit system to replace car travel, you don't have the additional car expenses on top of the $0.23/mile tax.

Once the mass transit systems are built, people would save money in the long run.

[Al Federfer]

85. Mass transit will only replace car travel when...

...we all have to live, work and play in big pigeon coops near the tracks.

[NickB79]

86. Or when Peak Oil destroys our economy

And we're back to working as farm hands just to make sure we have a roof over our heads and food to eat.

Hey, look at that, oil is almost $100/barrel.......

[Phoonzang]

87. I'm just curious

as someone who believes in the big Peak Oil crash (an assumption I'm making) what have you done to prepare. Or do you not bother because life is going to be so miserable for the few of us who are left you'd rather die? Serious question, I'm not being saracstic. I've just always wanted to know.

The way I look at it, if Peak Oil people like Kunstler are right and the entire human race will be relegated to being chicken farmers for the rest of existence with no hope of anything more, I'd rather just blow my brains out.

[Al Federfer]

88. No "oil crash" is going to happen...

The entire scenario is being precisely manipulated by powerful men, who are primarily interested in money and power. They aren't going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[NickB79]

90. Yes, because oil is an infinite resource

Teenage underpants gnomes at the center of the Earth excrete it from their pores when they go through puberty. It will never, ever, ever run out or fail to meet demand :sarcasm:

[Nihil]

106. *snort*

:spray:

Thank you for restoring my sense of humour this morning!

[AndyTiedye]

101. Turn Lawns into Gardens?

If the lawns turn into gardens (and some of the roofs too) the 'burbs could grow quite a bit of food.

Some of the houses might acquire passive-solar greenhouses, which can grow more food (even in the winter, perhaps).

[CRF450]

93. For those of us who choose to live in the country

Mass transit isn't an option. I dont really see mass transit as huge alternative, as widespread as people live in different areas here, its not going to happen like that. It would be better if we focus more on alternative fuel vehicles rather than something thats not going to work for most people.

Besides, I prefer to drive, and I like my cars :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. "Never mind the effect it has, I like my cars"

Sigh!

[CRF450]

98. Again, its only going to help those who live in the city.

Anyone that wants to use mass transit, I have no problem what so ever with it, its their choice as it is my choice to drive 15 miles one way to and from work. I like the country where its nice and quiet, where I can see the stars and just do what I want without anyone complaining.

If you dont like it that I like my cars (a Dodge Dakota and an 01 Trans Am) and a dirtbike, tough. I'm willing to pay the price it pays to own and mantain them, hell I dump money on the T/A for modifications all the time and the same thing on the dirtbike.

[Nihil]

107. Fair enough ...

> I'm willing to pay the price it pays to own and maintain them

You have chosen to spend your money and move out of the city.
You have chosen motor vehicles as your "indulgence" (a thing to spend
your spare money on).

You simply have to accept that the price you pay for your luxuries
will be going up and cough up on demand without complaining.

If only some of the other "I love my car" types were as honest as you.

[CRF450]

114. Yes and theirs another hobby I'm blowing my money on

Model airplanes. Pretty soon I'm going to build up one like this, which is electric powered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMUjaLJEvhI

[Robbien]

89. Not just an excuse for new taxes. Blaming climate change is a nice cover

for the fact that the Transportation Bill covered little or no infrastructure improvements. It was just a huge pork bill transferring money into lobbyist pockets.

So cities have to make do with the crumbling infrastructure they have. Most major cities are talking about a congestion tax and of course blaming it on the easy scapegoat, environmentalists.

[defendandprotect]

92. Any chance these citizens are going to wake up and make different demands on . ..

their planners?

We need Electric Cars and mass transportation ---

See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

We can do this in five years if we get rid of GM and their phony mpg which serves only the oil industry!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Right, and we could create countless living wage blue collar jobs

(a desperate need in our society) by ending the occupation of Iraq ($250 million a day and climbing) and using the resources to rebuild our infrastructure, retrofit communities for walking, cycling, and transit, and build transit systems.

Then we could tell OPEC where to stuff its oil.

[defendandprotect]

100. It's so crazy when people suggest that going GREEN would mean a loss of jobs -- !!!! ????

[SoCalDem]

104. Gee whiz.. On Calif freeways rush "hour" starts at 3:30 AM and lasts until 7PM

how they gonna do that:)

[taterguy]

108. If San Francisco really wanted to do something about global warming they'd level those damn hills

Have you ever tried to ride a bike in that city? It's fucking impossible.

[dysfunctional press]

127. yeah...but the mailmen and streetwalking hookers all have GREAT legs.

nt

[NuttyFluffers]

118. good. that's the stick. now where's the carrot?

i want more buses. preferrably more shuttle buses than the big behemoths being used now. you already got roads, there's no rail infrastructure needed to build. just buy the bus and throw it out there and charge us pennies on the dollar and i'll support you 100%. i hate driving, and though BART is slow, i wouldn't give it up without a fight.

[napi21]

121. I would ONLY agree with doing that IF there were some alternative for

people to use, like reliable public transportation. I think it's putting unreasonable burden on people who HAVE to drive to work when it's the only way for them to get there!

If there is safe, affordable, and reliable public transportation for those workers to use as an alternative, then I'm all for it.

[Neshanic]

125. What a load of horse shit. This is why we always loose.

These edicts from on high, from people that will not see past their face, but offer up this type of shit is amazing. Way to get people to vote for us, a big fuck you to the average person, as the wealthy just pay more. And where does that extra money go? Who gets that?

The real root of the problem, the 800 pound Gorilla in the room is not gas and how we use it, pay for it, or come up with some byzantine scheme to charge the most vulnerable, it is the way LAND IS USED. Regional land master planning is the root from all this springs. Tell the cities surrounding SF to start land planning and the uses on a large regional scale, and no city versus city dogfights with tax rebates and encentives to get the lastes monster thing, be it a Wallmart or a employment center. Planning land uses and viabbility of uses is now way beyond the city council stage. Nobody will poke this Gorilla.

Regional land planning will bypass ALL the infighting and leapfrog development, and start to structure mass transit to serve the existing AND plan logically for the future.

Until everyone buys into large regional and statewide master land planning and viability and transit, this crap is just sticking a finger in the dike.

Developers will still get to build farther out, in areas that are not served, and then force the government to build and expand freeways to them. We have been subsidizing developers as a hobby in Arizona.

Statewide and Regional Super Master plans that stop the disease, not put a band aid on it.