Raise gasoline taxes and fund mass transit

[valdore]

Here in the US for the most part our public transportation is so underfunded and nonexistent that third world countries probably have better mass transit infrastructure - I mean it is truly pathetic. We should tax the car slave dolts who choose to live out in low density car dependent suburbs/exurbs by increasing gas taxes - then channel the money into funding urban/regional transit systems, along with getting Amtrak up to date for inter-city trips.

We made our bed decades ago in the US with this stupid decision to center American life around the private automobile (read: everyone driving around between strip mall gulags and drive-thru franchise fry pits in the hellhole suburbs in their Toyota Camrys), now it's time to lie in that bed.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm against funding Mass transit. I drive 26 miles one way to work. I live in one county, and drive through 2 others to get to work. There's no one to carpool with, and I refuse to consider Marta. Its not safe.

A sub note, raising the already high taxes on fuel would lead to new senators and house members being elected and the others kicked to the curb. Can anyone say tea party? :p

[stevento]

I live in Los Angeles when I'm at school and we need have a really crappy mass transit. Our busses/trains are safe during the day but you can't just hop on the train/bus and head to work. We could carpool but we are too conceited for that in LA

[leekohler]

I'm against funding Mass transit. I drive 26 miles one way to work. I live in one county, and drive through 2 others to get to work. There's no one to carpool with, and I refuse to consider Marta. Its not safe.

A sub note, raising the already high taxes on fuel would lead to new senators and house members being elected and the others kicked to the curb. Can anyone say tea party? :p

Mass transit is our best bet in this country. We would be wise to invest more in it. I used to live in rural Ohio and could never have imagined that one day I'd live in a major city and not have one. It's the single-most best thing I've ever done. I spend $80 a month on transportation, nothing more. Now granted, my rent is higher, and I pay more taxes, but in the end it's still cheaper and I'm not polluting the planet.

The things I don't miss about having a car:

1. Paying for gas
2. Paying insurance
3. Paying for maintenance
4. Paying a monthly installment

When you add all that up, it's ridiculously expensive and you don't get much for your money. It's certainly not a good investment. I haven't owned a car in over nine years, and I say good riddance.

[CalBoy]

I'm against funding Mass transit. I drive 26 miles one way to work. I live in one county, and drive through 2 others to get to work. There's no one to carpool with, and I refuse to consider Marta. Its not safe.

Please, Bay Area drivers commute further than this on a daily basis, and thanks to BART, many of them don't have to put up with clogged freeways or $4.55 $4.65 $4.75 gas.

If you had a good train system (which it seems like MARTA could be save for its security issues and perhaps some other minor ones like frequency, which can be easily adjusted with only moderate funding), you wouldn't have to worry about paying for gas, polluting the planet, or using a fuel which supports dictators around the globe.

A sub note, raising the already high taxes on fuel would lead to new senators and house members being elected and the others kicked to the curb. Can anyone say tea party? :p

Are you joking? Our fuel taxes are pathetic; they probably don't even generate enough to pay for road maintenance and emergency services. Whether or not you'd like to believe it, driving that car costs you a lot more than a well built public transit system ever could.

[IanF0729]

Mass transit is our best bet in this country. We would be wise to invest more in it. I used to live in rural Ohio and could never have imagined that one day I'd live in a major city and not have one. It's the single-most best thing I've ever done. I spend $80 a month on transportation, nothing more. Now granted, my rent is higher, and I pay more taxes, but in the end it's still cheaper and I'm not polluting the planet.

...

When you add all that up, it's ridiculously expensive and you don't get much for your money. It's certainly not a good investment. I haven't owned a car in over nine years, and I say good riddance.

I second this!

I moved from San Antonio, Texas to Baltimore, Maryland about a year ago. In San Antonio, a car is required, but when I started researching the demographics of Baltimore, I started to realize that I might not need a car.

To live in Baltimore City, my insurance would have gone from $800 bi-annually to $1,600 bi-annually and I would have had the additional burden of paying to park my car. That would have run me $125 per month. In the end, I sold my car before I moved and could not have been happier with the decision.

Granted, my rent is more expensive in the heart of the city, but I know that I'm saving a lot of money by not having a car here.

To live in Baltimore County, my insurance surely would have increased (albeit not as much), but I also wouldn't have had to pay for parking.

Baltimore's mass transit system is not stellar (just ask anyone who has ever seen Baltimore's and DC's) or really all that safe if you require a bus (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-busattack,0,7650984.storygallery), but it's workable.

Baltimore City is currently struggling to expand (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.redline14jun14,0,7628691.story) the metro system, and I'd give my right hand (granted, I am left handed) to see some of it actually come to fruition.

For the time being, I'll have to live with the one metro line, the light rail, the Amtrak/MARC trains, and my own two feet (which I use the most often).

[Gray-Wolf]

Ok, to settle the debate. For me to use Marta, I have to drive 13 miles to the nearest bus station, Fayette county to fulton county. Wait 30 min to an hour for the bus. Rid the bus to the airport. Catch a train to mid town, transfer to another bus for an hours ride to outside I-285 to the job site. If I drive, I'm there in less than 40 min. If Marta, I would estimate an hour and a half min.

Not my cup of tea.

[Gelfin]

Ok, to settle the debate. For me to use Marta, I have to drive 13 miles to the nearest bus station, Fayette county to fulton county. Wait 30 min to an hour for the bus. Rid the bus to the airport. Catch a train to mid town, transfer to another bus for an hours ride to outside I-285 to the job site. If I drive, I'm there in less than 40 min. If Marta, I would estimate an hour and a half min.

Not my cup of tea.

While I am partly sympathetic to the expanded travel time argument, you do realize that "fund public transit" means extending more rail lines to outlying areas and expanding bus service, both in terms of frequency and number of routes, right?

That said, Atlanta has always been a miserable place to try to implement public transit, being the king of southern urban sprawl. The city keeps cannibalizing its own suburbs and then turning smaller towns into new suburbs. Hell, Newnan is practically a suburb of Atlanta now. Another twenty years I expect half the state will be Atlanta.

And let's be honest, part of that is that white flight is still alive and well in Georgia. I don't know if it's what you mean, but I know what some of my relatives would mean by "MARTA isn't safe," and that's exactly what makes public transit such a hard sell there.

[leekohler]

While I am partly sympathetic to the expanded travel time argument, you do realize that "fund public transit" means extending more rail lines to outlying areas and expanding bus service, both in terms of frequency and number of routes, right?

That said, Atlanta has always been a miserable place to try to implement public transit, being the king of southern urban sprawl. The city keeps cannibalizing its own suburbs and then turning smaller towns into new suburbs. Hell, Newnan is practically a suburb of Atlanta now. Another twenty years I expect half the state will be Atlanta.

And let's be honest, part of that is that white flight is still alive and well in Georgia. I don't know if it's what you mean, but I know what some of my relatives would mean by "MARTA isn't safe," and that's exactly what makes public transit such a hard sell there.

Umm yeah...that's kind of what I thought. :(

[hulugu]

Ok, to settle the debate. For me to use Marta, I have to drive 13 miles to the nearest bus station, Fayette county to fulton county. Wait 30 min to an hour for the bus. Rid the bus to the airport. Catch a train to mid town, transfer to another bus for an hours ride to outside I-285 to the job site. If I drive, I'm there in less than 40 min. If Marta, I would estimate an hour and a half min.

Not my cup of tea.

Ah southern counties, I love 'em. Fayette County is 197.4 square miles and Fulton is 535 square miles. In other words, they're tiny compared to anything in the southwest. For example, Pima county is 9,186 square miles. The city of Tucson covers 600 square miles in the metropolitan area alone.

The failure in your public transportation is funding and design, a well-designed system would have more buses, cutting down on your wait, and a more direct line.
More importantly, you might not find a public transportation system useful for you in your particular neck of the woods, but for the vast majority, well-designed and funded public transportation systems are a necessary investment in our cities.

That should settle the debate. ;)

[Gray-Wolf]

Most of Fayette county doesn't want mass transit. We like the rural aspects of the area. And yes, marta does bring crime to both the area, as well as the system itself. There is hardly a day to go by that there isn't some sort of crime involving Marta. And, the number of shooting s in the news, there, are up.

Edit - Peachtree city, on the edge of Fayette county, also uses golf carts as alternative transportation with over 90 miles of trails. Families can run to the store, via electric carts, and never have to crank the car up.

[it5five]

What car-lovers/public transportation haters don't realize is that you won't have much of a choice in the future. Oil is a finite resource. You won't have your cars forever. Yes, alternative fuels could help, but mass transportation is the future.

Here in Phoenix we have a light-rail opening this December. With bus ridership already skyrocketing in the past month or so, they expect the light-rail to be popular as well. But even still, cities like Phoenix are already in trouble. It is one giant sprawling suburb. Rather than expanding bus lines to new areas (residents in the suburbs complain of "safety"), we focused on expanding freeways. We need more bus lines and we need to expand the light-rail. It won't happen though. For some reason Phoenix residents see this city as being "car-friendly", and would not vote to approve higher taxes to pay for expanding public transport.

I'm looking at grad schools right now, and one major criteria is that the school is located in a city with decent public transportation or is bike-friendly. Phoenix is neither of those, and the city will pay for it in the future.

[Desertrat]

valdore, I rather object to the accuracy of, "We made our bed decades ago in the US with this stupid decision to center American life around the private automobile..."

The growth in the use of the automobile contributed greatly to the economic improvement of the Joe Average. For the first time in world history, it became possible for somebody to leave "poor pickings" and quickly move to where there was a better local economy. It greatly increased old Joe's freedom to come and go as he chose, and to increase his freedom of choice as to where he lived and what he did for a living.

The automobile increased personal autonomy and personal freedom. there's no way that anything that does that can be all-bad.

Now, I won't argue against a societal shift from freedom to license. :) From rational usage to excess--but that's a whole different realm of argument.

Mass transit? Some places, yeah, it will work well. Some places, it will help. Just don't think of it as a panacea, applicable equally well in every place.

The mix of strategies is already underway. People are looking to move closer to jobs, or find jobs closer to home. People are looking to change to more economical personal transportation, and are becoming more efficient in their use of existing vehicles--as we did in WW II during gas rationing. That's already occurring as a result of marketplace pressures.

And more people are riding bicycles and using existing forms of public transportation.

I'd be willing to bet that many cities are already trying to figure ways to expand public transportation availability, and writing grant proposals right now...

'Rat

[OscarTheGrouch]

Here in the US for the most part our public transportation is so underfunded and nonexistent that third world countries probably have better mass transit infrastructure - I mean it is truly pathetic. We should tax the car slave dolts who choose to live out in low density car dependent suburbs/exurbs by increasing gas taxes - then channel the money into funding urban/regional transit systems, along with getting Amtrak up to date for inter-city trips.

We made our bed decades ago in the US with this stupid decision to center American life around the private automobile (read: everyone driving around between strip mall gulags and drive-thru franchise fry pits in the hellhole suburbs in their Toyota Camrys), now it's time to lie in that bed.

I choose to live out in a low density area for several reasons, the BIGGEST of them is I cannot afford in the city what I can afford here. My house cost me 109,000. It is a 3 bedroom 2.5 bathroom house. It's not very nice, but the same house in the city where I live would cost TWICE that. So, in reality, it was not a choice but more something I was forced in to. I will admit that our mass transit sucks. Hell, we have a bus line in my county, and we cannot even manage it correctly. The last thing I want to do to the government bureaucrats is give them more money to mis manage our bus line- which doesn't go anywhere but low income areas. Helps me exactly ZILCH.

By your statement, I am a dolt, and because I HAVE to live a little in an outlying area so my family can have a decent place to live, I should be punished more than I already am by a 45 minute car ride each way 5 days a week, to a job i frankly hate? Tell you what, buy me a house in the city, and then speak.

[Ugg]

The growth in the use of the automobile contributed greatly to the economic improvement of the Joe Average. For the first time in world history, it became possible for somebody to leave "poor pickings" and quickly move to where there was a better local economy. It greatly increased old Joe's freedom to come and go as he chose, and to increase his freedom of choice as to where he lived and what he did for a living.

The automobile increased personal autonomy and personal freedom. there's no way that anything that does that can be all-bad.

Now, I won't argue against a societal shift from freedom to license. :) From rational usage to excess--but that's a whole different realm of argument.



The problem as I see it is that the move to personal transportation effectively eliminated public transportation in most places. Which in all reality killed any sense of personal autonomy. Being forced to drive a car is not a choice IMO. It's not the excess so much as it is the lack of common sense.

I really pity those suburbanites and even exurbanites throughout the southern US. They're going to face a world of hurt.

[Eraserhead]

Mass transit? Some places, yeah, it will work well. Some places, it will help. Just don't think of it as a panacea, applicable equally well in every place.

I agree, there are some places it doesn't work, like northern scotland, there it would be less polluting to shut the railway and give every passenger a land-rover.

[Gray-Wolf]

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

[OscarTheGrouch]

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

/agreed

[Eraserhead]

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

A town of 30000 can definitely support a good public transport system. Admittedly in this case "system" means two or three bus routes but still...

[Ugg]

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

Cities are where things like telephones, computers and cars are invented, refined and made affordable.

If the world was still reliant on countryfolk to supply its needs, we'd still be using candlelight, counting using our (12 of each, mind you!) fingers and toes, and hollering at each other across the holla.

It's all well and good to prefer your particular lifestyle but when gas hits $10 a gallon....

[Gray-Wolf]

If gas hit $10, then the primitive lifestyle would be a welcome way.

[leekohler]

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

Wow- that was lovely. Sorry, but you guys need us. We're the go-getting over-acheivers who invent and create the things you like to buy. I'm even at work right now.

[Eraserhead]

If gas hit $10, then the primitive lifestyle would be a welcome way.

However the primative lifestyle is much less efficient, without mass production/technology we could only support a tiny fraction of the current human population. Crudely I'd guesstimate that fraction to be around 1/6th of the current human population as that is what it was before the industrial revolution.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's an irony, that the world survived for thousands of years with out technology. I love my Macbook, but given the chance to leave in the mountains and off the land, I would go and not look back. Then, i would have no need for gas no matter the price.

[themadchemist]

The conundrum here is that in order for such a tax to be fair, the infrastructure needs already to be in place. Otherwise, you are taxing people for commuting by car without giving them a viable public transport alternative (which, I assume, is the eventual point--use taxes to change behavior). That means that the government would have to put a heavy upfront investment to update public transportation. This update would take quite some time and would reduce the capacity of the current systems (look at the months of weekly shut downs of the Red Line in Chicago for what is really not that huge of a project). Therefore, any sensible taxation approach to updating public transportation would only be useful ten or twenty years from now, and would require us to wait until then to recoup the billions of dollars we'd have to invest now. And of course, if wages continue not to rise as fast as inflation, we would have to tax a higher share of income in order to adjust for inflation.

Plus, even if all this worked out, the dynamics of gentrification in some cities mean that there is a very regressive dimension to this sort of tax.

[Eraserhead]

I love my Macbook, but given the chance to leave in the mountains and off the land, I would go and not look back. Then, i would have no need for gas no matter the price.

Unless you are prepared to allow 5 billion people to die that isn't an option, and even the worst global warming effects wouldn't do that much damage.

[Cromulent]

Just out of interest what is the highest tax bracket in the US? How much gets taken out of your pay check at the end of the month?

[Gelfin]

Right now the top individual federal tax rate is 35%. State taxes vary from state to state, and then there's social security and so forth.

Me, about 30% of my paycheck goes to the government in one form or another, and that's the way it's been ever since I started working full time.

[LethalWolfe]

It's an irony, that the world survived for thousands of years with out technology. I love my Macbook, but given the chance to leave in the mountains and off the land, I would go and not look back. Then, i would have no need for gas no matter the price.
You might pine for the days of yore but you are still pining for technology (just in a simpler form). The wheel & axle required for your wagon and the horseshoes worn by your beast of burden were both leading technologies back in the day.;)


Lethal

[zap2]

We need is windfall profits tax, like in the 1980s.


Take that cash, plus some of the money we're wasting on the Iraq, and pour it into our mass transit system.

[mithrilfox]

Because of the way the US is currently structured, mass transit for many areas is an extremely unprofitable venture (in the short run, and even in the long run). We would need funding from a source that is not primarily seeking profit, such as government and environmental agency cooperative initiatives.

Here in Japan, I love the way things are set up. Unless you live in the boondocks, you can get good mass transit from anywhere to just about anywhere, with maybe 10-15 minutes of walking. My closest train station is 15 minutes away, about 5 if I bike it. But then again, I hardly use the train, because I can get everywhere I need to get with my bicycle. Additionally, many businesses have "dorms" or employee housing located on or near the business grounds. This means that such individuals, even if they need a car to get the grocery store, don't need it to get to work, and so they save all that money, wear and tear. Plus, no gasoline is used, and no carbon emissions produced.

In my case, I walk or bike to work, stores, doctors, church, etc. I don't even own a car or motor bike. Because it rarely drops below freezing, there is no indoor heating in my home, and we heat individual rooms based on need (heat only the room we are using with a small kerosene heater). The air conditioner is placed in the smallest room, and we rare use it. If we do use it, we drape blankets across the doors to help insulate the room and reduce the load on the AC unit, helping reduce emissions and electricity (helping also to reduce our bill, too). We use fans most of the time, and only rarely use the AC at night if we are sweating too much while we're trying to sleep.

When I take a shower, especially in the spring/summer/fall, I turn the water/gas off as much as possible. I turn it on, spray myself for 10 seconds, turn it off. Lather up, turn it back on, and finish. I probably use only about twice as much water as an astronaut taking a shower. :D When I wash my hands, I turn the water on very low to avoid wasting. If we boil anything, we make sure to use a lid to reduce the amount of heat necessary to bring it to a boil. After boiling the food items, we use the remaining water in our garden, since it also contains vitamins/minerals seeped from the vegetables/meat. As much as possible, we try not to use dinnerware unnecessarily, so we don't have as much stuff to wash. All our clothes are hung out to dry, not run through a dryer.

When not using the internet, we shutdown the modem and wireless router. We shut off power to devices not in use, including the satellite receiver, which would normally remain constantly on waiting for mails that never come anyway. The only devices running 24/7 in our home are the refrigerator and a small carbon monoxide detector plugged in by the stovetop. You could also count two smoke detectors running off batteries.

These are just a few ways to help reduce emissions, even if you can't escape your car at the moment! :) Seriously, people should consider hanging their clothes out to dry again. It's less damaging then running them in a hot dryer that tosses them all around. If you don't live in the absolute boon docks, grab a bike, put a basket on the front or back of it, and bike to your local grocery store. Bike your groceries home, and use a sturdy canvas bag that you can reuse for groceries 500 times (instead of those incredibly wasteful plastic bags!). Turn fridges lower if they are unnecessarily cold. Lower your thermostat in the winter, since it's probably higher than it needs to be (if you can comfortably wear a t-shirt in your house when it's freezing outdoors, you're heat is turned up way too high). Use fans in place of AC units. Drive with the windows down instead of the AC on. Shut the car off if idling for more than a minute or two (as long as you are confident your car can turn back on!:p). Check your tire pressure, make sure your spark plugs are in good shape, and look into adding acetone to your gasoline to increase mileage (don't do anything you aren't confident is safe).

And getting back to the OP's topic, use mass transit where possible, instead of your car. Reduce the number of cars you own, get some money from selling one, eliminate the insurance cost, and share a car with a spouse or other family member. It's not impossible, people used to live like that, like life wasn't all about being able to do anything at any time you want, actually having to coordinate your moves with others in the same house. Double up on trips to anywhere and everywhere. If your roommate/spouse needs to hit up Circuit City, combine that with a trip to the nearby grocery store. And speaking of groceries, eat leftovers more. The energy consumed cooking a larger portion of something is often negligible or even non-existent (you might have used the same amount of heat for half the stir-fry veggies, or boiled potatoes). Microwaves are relatively energy efficient, especially compared to heating food on the burners or in the stove. Cook and eat cold meals during the summer to save on costs and emissions, and cool yourself off. Reuse a solid drinking bottle instead of buying water bottles over and over, and get your drinking water from the tap, or buy it from the machine where you refill a single container instead of buy new ones.

Sorry, I'm going overboard! :D

[valdore]

Mithril, in sentiment I totally agree vis a vis living a car free life - the problem with that here in the US is so much of the built environment - indeed nearly everything built since the mid twentieth century, is low density and car dependent suburban sprawl.

We have our stupid and brainless land use segregating zoning laws to thank for this. Zoning was a good idea in its original incarnation - to separate noxious industrial land uses from harming the health of residents nearby, however the separation of land uses has been taken to such an absurd degree over the decades that now, the average American lives among car-dependent clapboard tract housing, all serviced by huge strip malls along the nearby arterial roads. It really is quite a big ****** mess us Americans have cooked up for ourselves.

Personally, I'm predicting the outer-ring, far flung suburbs are going to wither up and become the slums of the 21st Century, once the unsustainability of that living arrangement comes to bear.

[SMM]

< ... big snip ... >

Sorry, I'm going overboard! :D



I applaud your efforts for conserving energy and living a 'green' lifestyle. :) My wife and I also live similarly, except biking to work is nearly impossible. We live in the Cascade foothills at the 800 foot elevation point. We are 20 miles from the nearest city. Last year we bought a hybrid car, and a second one just recently. We both go in totally different directions to work. She drives to town and takes the bus to Seattle. I only commute 12-15 minutes to work. Unfortunately, there is no bus service and no bicycles are allowed on this dangerous stretch of highway. We have replaced virtually light in the house with low energy fluorescent bulbs. Our weekly garbage only half fills the smallest can they make, although, we have many times that in recyclables. It is not a major effort to live efficiently, it just take a paradigm shift in one's thinking.

[Ugg]

Personally, I'm predicting the outer-ring, far flung suburbs are going to wither up and become the slums of the 21st Century, once the unsustainability of that living arrangement comes to bear.

I'll go even further and say the areas that will be most affected are rural.

HWY 2 that crosses northern Montana has slowly turned into 300 miles of ghost towns. There are hundreds of similar areas throughout the midwest and west. Wages in those areas are low to begin with and fuel costs take up a big chunk of a person's earnings.

No matter how sterile and distant a suburb may be, it's at least close to an urban area that offers other possibilities. There are no such possibilities in rural America.

[hulugu]

... It greatly increased old Joe's freedom to come and go as he chose, and to increase his freedom of choice as to where he lived and what he did for a living.

The automobile increased personal autonomy and personal freedom. there's no way that anything that does that can be all-bad....

'Rat



...I should be punished more than I already am by a 45 minute car ride each way 5 days a week, to a job i frankly hate? Tell you what, buy me a house in the city, and then speak.

The problem as I see it is that the move to personal transportation effectively eliminated public transportation in most places. Which in all reality killed any sense of personal autonomy. Being forced to drive a car is not a choice IMO. It's not the excess so much as it is the lack of common sense.

I really pity those suburbanites and even exurbanites throughout the southern US. They're going to face a world of hurt.

'Rat, generally I agree with you, however, I think Ugg's point is spot on. While the automobile was a boon, its rise came at the expense of the public transportation systems rather than through a parallel existence. Some of this was done deliberately, but much of it was market and political forces at work. Now that the price of oil has jumped yet again, we see people like Oscar who are not free because of the automobile, but rather trapped in the infrastructure that has grown around it.



Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(

Didn't you just get done talking about your commute? City dwellers in Chicago and New York don't really have this problem because of a large-scale public transportation system combined with dense building. The people who really need public transportation are those living in the exurbs and suburbs who work in the cities. In my own particular case, I'm technically a city-dweller and my longest drive is 5 miles, although I mostly bike and walk.
Lastly, I hope you understand that your use of a car and a lightbulb (not to mention your laptop and it's internet connection) all produce pollution, which doesn't magically float to the cities and rest there like the fiery clouds over Mordor.
Also, horses don't work in any density, look it up.

[mithrilfox]

Americans will have to get over their sense of personal autonomy in their daily travel, and learn to operate in close proximity to others. I too am an American, and so I include myself in this.

But I agree with many who stated clearly that it's impossible for many people to use a bike to get to work, and going without a car would mean going without making it to the nearest store (20 miles away). Biking a gallon of milk back in the summer heat for 10 miles is just not fun, considering that you wouldn't be able to fit much of the rest of your groceries at all! You could easily pass out trying to make three trips back and forth to get your essentials. Lose a heck of a lot of weight, though.

If Americans would buy less food, and be willing to pay a little more for each item, we could better sustain more local grocery stores. We could get more in touch with the owners, too, and people could make specific requests for items that are not normally stocked. Getting an idea of how much they need, a local grocer could help cut their own losses by ordering only as much as they use (or thereabouts).

The car issue runs so much deeper than convenience or love of cars. But one thing is for sure... Wherever possible, I'd love to see them run passenger train systems along some of the freeways that get so much use. We could use a similar system to that of the subway, offering unreserved seating and standing room, first come first pick sort of thing. Include a few seats for handicapped persons, and there we go... A workable system.

I'd love to see neighbors getting together and combining trips to the grocery store. Wouldn't it be awesome if three neighbors from three houses could all car pool to the grocery store, instead of going separately? People might learn to get along. I loved it how in college, my roommate didn't even have a car, and rode along with me or another roommate. Only once or twice can I remember him asking me to make a separate trip just to take him somewhere, and when that's all they do, it's easy to say yes. I also lived right next to campus myself, so I walked everyday to class, or rode my bike. Didn't have to pay for gas, wear and tear, or the parking pass for the university (which was more of a "hunting license" than spot reservation).

But the only thing that will get this going is a HUGE initiative by government and private organizations. It will require a lot of understanding of the public, and no major bickering. But alas, Democrats will avoid it cause it's not popular, Republicans would blast it with talk of damaging the economy and spending recklessly, and people would criticize it and complain about their tax money going to waste.

I love America in a lot of ways. Living in Japan for these years has made me realized just how much I enjoy aspects of the American culture. But our wastefulness is second perhaps only to our me-first, selfish attitudes. It's ingrained into me as well. Be an individual, do your own thing, make your own style, do it your way. Don't go to the store when your friend wants to go, go when you want to go. Don't drive mom's car when she lets you, get your own car. Pimp it out, make it reflect your inner style. Jam a huge stereo in that and blast it away so that everyone within a quarter mile radius is forced to hear the bumping bass of your personal music choice. Blast by people at lightning speeds on the freeway, not because you're in a hurry or actually need to be somewhere, but just because they're going "too slow" by your definition.

Buy that SUV to make you feel secure and in control, and drive around with just you and your purse or wallet, a little lighter now that you own an SUV. Buy that full-sized truck. Why? Cause you actually use it for work? No, not really, helping your friend move or picking up a piece of furniture at the store every three months doesn't count. Buy just cause it's your style, and you love trucks. :rolleyes:

But honestly, someone could criticize me for buying an iMac when I already had a MacBook. True, we can criticize each other using our own personal standards, and there is always someone doing it worse than us, and someone doing it better. But in my defense, I did sell my old iBook to help offset the new item! :D Now, my buddy doesn't need to add to the junk in this world by buying a new PC, but instead can enjoy my old iBook G4.

We just all have to try out best in whatever way we know how. For example, during the winter here, I wedged cardboard over the front of my window by my desk in order to prevent more heat loss. It was a frosted window, so the loss of light wasn't much and didn't cause me to use more electricity in that manner. It conserved heat costs, reducing the amount of kerosene we used. This year, my wife and I want to spend more time at the library which is 1 minute by bike from our house. If we go there, we can enjoy the cool air and read some books. We don't waste electricity or money on using fans or the AC that way. I just lowered the fridge temperature marginally as I realized that we are consuming items relatively quickly, from the time we put them in. That means, it doesn't need to be so cold to keep them fresh "indefinitely."

Just many of the ways I'm trying my best, while we wait for governments and big companies to do the right things.

[MacNut]

We pay the highest gas taxes in Connecticut and of that, 60% goes to the general fund. So all this we are paying in taxes most of it doesn't even pay for roads. They can tax you all they want for gas but they won't spend it where they should.

[it5five]

The car issue runs so much deeper than convenience or love of cars. But one thing is for sure... Wherever possible, I'd love to see them run passenger train systems along some of the freeways that get so much use. We could use a similar system to that of the subway, offering unreserved seating and standing room, first come first pick sort of thing. Include a few seats for handicapped persons, and there we go... A workable system.


You get it, yet city planners do not. Amazing.

I've mentioned before in this thread the opening of light rail here in Phoenix in December. As it will be when it opens, it runs a limited line in an already dense are with good bus coverage. That's fine, and I realize it's a start, but my dad and I are convinced that it could have been infinitely more effective had they done what you propose. Solution: Run the light rail along the major freeways. Have larger depots/stations where freeways interchange, and have an expanded bus line centered around these major stations.

[imac/cheese]

Mass transit is great and works wonderfully in many places, but it is not ideal for the majority of the small towns throughout america. I really don't see small town american life shrivelling up and withering away. More likely we will develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles that are available to the general public. I see it as a much easier change to go from fossil fuel vehicles to electric vehicles than to go from an automobile society to a mass tranist society. There will no doubt be improvements to our mass transit systems throughout the US and there will probably be improvements in our communities that promote self sustaining development areas, but I really don't think we will ever see the end of our automobile society.

[pdham]

You get it, yet city planners do not. Amazing.


As a city planner I have to jump in here. Virtually every planner would agree completely with this idea. The roadblock is in the City financing such a project, or more accurately the political blowback which would occur from financing such a project. Not to mention you would have to deal with multiple governmental and taxing jurisdiction.

Planners have been trying to chamption mass transit and increased density for more than 25 years, but unfortunately we have little power if a proposal is politically unpopular.

[pdham]

I really don't see small town american life shrivelling up and withering away.

It already is. Small, rural towns are economic development disasters. I work in many such places and between Wal-Marts killing main street retail and many manufacturing anchors leaving or closing down, small towns have virtually no way to increase tax base and as a result are literally rotting away.

[Gelfin]

Mass transit is great and works wonderfully in many places, but it is not ideal for the majority of the small towns throughout america. I really don't see small town american life shrivelling up and withering away.

I was a bit inclined towards kneejerk agreement with this sentiment, because we have all been told this over and over again, but then I stopped and took a minute to think about it.

I grew up in a very small community. Like most Southern communities, it didn't just spring up in the middle of nowhere. It grew up along a U.S. highway. Probably eighty percent of residents live within half a mile of that highway. The big textile company that was more or less the only employer in town when I was a child operated mills all of which were located along the highway. Almost all the shopping and schools, too. I remember it being impossible to go anywhere at 4pm because of shift change.

A single light rail line would have served the entire community. Add three bus lines and it's even better. The whole system could have been built by the company on the same terms that the company built hundreds and hundreds of inexpensive houses to be sold to mill workers once upon a time, because it was an investment in the community that kept their business running, and both the company and the community would have been better off for it.

The only things that would have interfered would have been lack of foresight and attitudes that insist public transit is a "big city" thing, not to mention the insidious little complexion issues. As a matter straight-up of city planning it could have been brilliant, and later on it would have made the area more attractive for bringing in other industries.

[it5five]

As a city planner I have to jump in here. Virtually every planner would agree completely with this idea. The roadblock is in the City financing such a project, or more accurately the political blowback which would occur from financing such a project. Not to mention you would have to deal with multiple governmental and taxing jurisdiction.

Planners have been trying to chamption mass transit and increased density for more than 25 years, but unfortunately we have little power if a proposal is politically unpopular.

Sorry to blame it all on you guys. I suppose the city and the voters should carry most of the blame.

[pdham]

Sorry to blame it all on you guys. I suppose the city and the voters should carry most of the blame.

I wish you could blame it on us.... at least that would mean we are more than advisory when it comes to sensitive issues.

[Desertrat]

zap2, the windfall profits tax on oil that we once were so foolish to institute led directly to a reduction in supply and an increase in price.

So: Is there an economic sector that you regard as profitable but unimportant to "the good of the country"? And, at what percentage of profit would you begin "windfall"?

Funny-odd: Back some thirty years ago when gasoline prices were going up so high and fast, there was serious discussion of the re-creation of "company towns", where some large operation would set up for residences and small businesses in close proximity to the large-scale employer. Shorten commutes...

'Rat

[mithrilfox]

As a city planner I have to jump in here. Virtually every planner would agree completely with this idea. The roadblock is in the City financing such a project, or more accurately the political blowback which would occur from financing such a project. Not to mention you would have to deal with multiple governmental and taxing jurisdiction.

Planners have been trying to chamption mass transit and increased density for more than 25 years, but unfortunately we have little power if a proposal is politically unpopular.

Biggest possible second to financing it in the first place is the viability of it. Would people actually use it? Would it save them money, time, and stress, since that's where it's gotta be at.

If everyone still keeps all their cars and uses the mass transit, it may end up being just as expensive, since the car still has the fixed costs of insurance and maintenance. People will need to eliminate a car (out of a two-three car family, for example), and then replace that car with the mass transit option. Still having at least one car on hand will help reassure them that life will go on, but the mass transit will likely be far cheaper than the car.

We absolutely need the government to come in and make huge strides in paving the way for this kind of system. You need major tax breaks, a knowledgeable company or agency to run it, and assurance of safety. Have one personnel roam the train keeping an eye out for anything suspicious or unusual, make sure there are emergency "red" buttons throughout, and in particularly questionable areas or areas which have had trouble, hire a guard to patrol the train. Keep them free of graffiti and maintain their appearance, and that should help maintain a clean, safe image. Let them degrade without the proper funding, and it will fall apart.

[Erwin-Br]

Mass Transit = hell. Waiting for the bus in the rain and wind (or blazing heat in the summer)... Sitting in a crowded train with people coughing and sneezing in your face... Getting gum or other filthy stuff in your clothes... No place to sit because it's so damn busy during rush hour... I could go on and on...

Cars in their current form may not have a future, but what about cars running on alternative energy?

--Erwin

[Desertrat]

mithrilfox siad, "Americans will have to get over their sense of personal autonomy in their daily travel, and learn to operate in close proximity to others."

Why? There will always be some form of liquid transportation fuel. I saw all this coming, decades ago, and ensured that I would be able to afford to travel as I see fit. The average driver racks up some 15,000 miles per year. At 25¢ per mile, that's $3,750 a year. For a 40-mpg Ford Escort (my experience), that's $10 gasoline.

The problem with "close proximity" has already been studied to death. Basically, the more such proximity, the greater the number of social problems for a culture like ours in the U.S.

'Rat

[pdham]

The problem with "close proximity" has already been studied to death. Basically, the more such proximity, the greater the number of social problems for a culture like ours in the U.S.

'Rat

Source?

I am sorry buy this is quite a strong claim. I think you are confusing correlation with causation. In that high dense areas may have more "social problems" (what ever that means, but I am assuming you mean things like crime), but it is likely due to other factors (such as income levels) than it is the proximity.

[leekohler]

mithrilfox siad, "Americans will have to get over their sense of personal autonomy in their daily travel, and learn to operate in close proximity to others."

Why? There will always be some form of liquid transportation fuel. I saw all this coming, decades ago, and ensured that I would be able to afford to travel as I see fit. The average driver racks up some 15,000 miles per year. At 25¢ per mile, that's $3,750 a year. For a 40-mpg Ford Escort (my experience), that's $10 gasoline.

The problem with "close proximity" has already been studied to death. Basically, the more such proximity, the greater the number of social problems for a culture like ours in the U.S.

'Rat

Really? I need specific studies for that one. I've lived in Chicago for 16 years now and have great neighbors of all nationalities, classes and sexual orientations. Everybody gets along very well. In my corner Irish pub on any given day I can find: Latino, black, white, gay, straight, cops, firemen, politicians, truck drivers, construction workers, college students, repiblicans, democrats and there are many more. We all get along just fine. Seems to me that when people spend more time getting to know people they differ from, the fewer problems we have.

[Daveman Deluxe]

lee: That reminds me of a famous quote along the lines of "The fastest cure for racism is travel." I had a professor who told us that when you get out in the world, you start to realize that all anybody wants is three square meals a day and a little bit of fun.

[Eraserhead]

Biking a gallon of milk back in the summer heat for 10 miles is just not fun, considering that you wouldn't be able to fit much of the rest of your groceries at all! You could easily pass out trying to make three trips back and forth to get your essentials.

For one I can certainly carry a weeks shop on the back of my bike in panniers in a single trip, and you could always car share or get home delivery for your shopping (remember 40% of the cars lifetime emissions are created at manufacturing).

EDIT:
Mass Transit = hell. Waiting for the bus in the rain and wind (or blazing heat in the summer)...

For the former you have bus shelters, for the latter if you don't have AC all the time you adapt to deal with it, you just have to drink more water.

.
Sitting in a crowded train with people coughing and sneezing in your face...

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Getting gum or other filthy stuff in your clothes...

This virtually never actually happens though. I've only noticed it once in catching the bus every day for 6 years.

No place to sit because it's so damn busy during rush hour... I could go on and on...

The same applies with cars crawling through the traffic.

[maestro55]

Raise gasoline taxes in order to fund something that I do not use now and wouldn't use it in it's current state unless I had to? I would have to say that I would be completely against this, and I certainly wouldn't want us to raise fuel taxes while continuing to give big oil tax breaks but that is a totally different story.

Why do I not currently ride the Waco Transit System? That is the only real public transportation in Waco. It isn't very expensive but it wouldn't be feasible. There aren't enough routes so not only do the routes stop running at 7:15 (I like to go out on my evenings off work and the evenings I work at Wal-Mart I don't get off till 11 or midnight so I would end up having to walk or ride a bike home, something that I am not going to feel like doing every day after working two jobs. You give me the solution of raising my gas tax so we will have more routes and so that they would run later. However, some interesting questions come up.

How would this gas tax be seperated among areas? How do we know that this money would go right back into expanding and bettering the transit system? Even with more routes and longer running hours (Like the Capital Metro which has routes that run as late as 3 AM, and I really like the way the Capital Metro is set-up and if I lived in Austin I would probably use the service but I would still own a car as I enjoy road trips) what about the safety of riding public transportation. Sure I can die in a car wreck but I can also be mugged, and frankly the current state of the local transit system is terrible, the busses smell horrible and have some rather scary people riding on them I feel much safer commuting to work in my car.

Yes I am worried about global warming, and I support alternative energy and I would welcome improvement to the mass transit system in my area. However, I think the best way to do this is to get the tax money some other way rather than punishing those who choose to currently use a car or even those who HAVE to use a car (for 18 years of my life I lived in a town where in order to ride the bus I would had to have driven a good 30 miles) by raising the gas taxes that will only raise the cost of fuel beyond what it already is at due to the oil giants who don't feel as if they are already making enough money.

[mactastic]

valdore, I rather object to the accuracy of, "We made our bed decades ago in the US with this stupid decision to center American life around the private automobile..."

The growth in the use of the automobile contributed greatly to the economic improvement of the Joe Average. For the first time in world history, it became possible for somebody to leave "poor pickings" and quickly move to where there was a better local economy. It greatly increased old Joe's freedom to come and go as he chose, and to increase his freedom of choice as to where he lived and what he did for a living.

The automobile increased personal autonomy and personal freedom. there's no way that anything that does that can be all-bad.
Think of it as living off your credit card and calling it income. Yeah, the car provided a lot of benefit at little cost way back when. But those decisions that seemed so good at the time are turning out not to be. Why? Because while the cost in dollars was cheap in comparison to the benefits, the life-cycle costs of those decisions are only now beginning to be recognized, and they are not sustainable in this fashion.

As a "for example", consider the cost of developing property. You face a choice of a downtown location that has been previously developed, and a virgin property in the suburbs. Odds are that, unless location is a significant factor, the developer will choose the virgin site. Why? Because there is less risk of incurring costs due to demolition and unknown underground conditions. Which makes it a better pick for the developer, but a worse pick for the community at large, since now more infrastructure demands will be placed on the fringes of the city; and with a larger infrastructure in place, will encourage more people to develop nearby. This kind of "suburb hopscotch" is typical of development patterns in post-war cities.

Now, I won't argue against a societal shift from freedom to license. :) From rational usage to excess--but that's a whole different realm of argument.

Mass transit? Some places, yeah, it will work well. Some places, it will help. Just don't think of it as a panacea, applicable equally well in every place.
This is very true. One size does not fit all.

The mix of strategies is already underway. People are looking to move closer to jobs, or find jobs closer to home. People are looking to change to more economical personal transportation, and are becoming more efficient in their use of existing vehicles--as we did in WW II during gas rationing. That's already occurring as a result of marketplace pressures.

And more people are riding bicycles and using existing forms of public transportation.
Which is all well and good, but remember what happened once the gas crisis of the '70s was over? The market can just as easily pressure you right back into a gas hog you don't need once the crisis is over. Relying on market pressure to effect lasting change is a fool's errand.

I'd be willing to bet that many cities are already trying to figure ways to expand public transportation availability, and writing grant proposals right now...

'Rat
You'd lose that bet. Where is the money going to come from? From George W. Bush's generous DOT? From states that are cutting teachers because they can't afford to pay them? I think not.

I'm reminded of the funding problem discussed by the head of one of the local community colleges: When times are bad is when people seek retraining and educational opportunities at the community college, which swells their enrollment at the very time the states are cutting their budgets.

IOW, when times are bad, there is no money for cities to be dreaming about installing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mass transit. When times are good, there is no demand for those same services, and few people want to pony up their tax dollars (stolen from them at the point of a gun, of course) to implement a system to help the next time things get bad.

The problem as I see it is that the move to personal transportation effectively eliminated public transportation in most places. Which in all reality killed any sense of personal autonomy. Being forced to drive a car is not a choice IMO. It's not the excess so much as it is the lack of common sense.

I really pity those suburbanites and even exurbanites throughout the southern US. They're going to face a world of hurt.
I hope you realize that cities are not manufacturing centers. Stuff in the city will cost plenty more too, even if you are somewhat insulated from the personal costs of gas.

We're all in this together. Everyone is going to face a world of hurt before this is over.

Its city dwellers that are responsible for the need of public transportation. I prefer towns of 30,000 or less, and if I had my druthers, I would ride a horse, and own a wagon to haul things in. Cities, are the ones who need trains and busses. And they bring crowds, pollution, and things that are best left in the dark. :(
Does someone have a gun to your head forcing you to drive your car? Why not make yourself an example, and show all us city-folk how it's done?

As a city planner I have to jump in here. Virtually every planner would agree completely with this idea. The roadblock is in the City financing such a project, or more accurately the political blowback which would occur from financing such a project. Not to mention you would have to deal with multiple governmental and taxing jurisdiction.

Planners have been trying to chamption mass transit and increased density for more than 25 years, but unfortunately we have little power if a proposal is politically unpopular.
I will second this. City planners tend to be among the most aggressive advocates of smart growth. Unfortunately, by the time a city planner's plan is run through all the review agencies, all the political BS, and all the good-old-boy networks, the plan usually bears little resemblance to it's original intent.

[themadchemist]

Raise gasoline taxes in order to fund something that I do not use now and wouldn't use it in it's current state unless I had to?


Yeah, that's my problem with this system. You can't punish people now for making the only reasonable choice. And it seems unreasonable to pay it forward the 10-20 years it would take to put together a really quality public transportation system in a lot of areas. This idea sounds really great until you take into account that little variable called "time."

[yg17]

Uhhh....no thanks. Public transit just isn't going to happen in certain areas. It's scarce in the suburbs, and nonexistent in rural areas. Suburbs might happen if given the funding, but in rural areas, where there's simply not the demand, it's just not gonna happen. And it's certainly not fair to make the people who won't ever be able to use it to pay for it. Any tax increases to pay for mass transit should be either sales tax or income/property tax for the areas that will actually benefit from public transit. That way, perhaps with a few exceptions, people won't be paying for something they can't ever use.

[valdore]

Uhhh....no thanks. Public transit just isn't going to happen in certain areas. It's scarce in the suburbs, and nonexistent in rural areas. Suburbs might happen if given the funding, but in rural areas, where there's simply not the demand, it's just not gonna happen. And it's certainly not fair to make the people who won't ever be able to use it to pay for it. Any tax increases to pay for mass transit should be either sales tax or income/property tax for the areas that will actually benefit from public transit. That way, perhaps with a few exceptions, people won't be paying for something they can't ever use.

But throwing billions into building the Interstate Highways doesn't count, right?

And need I remind some of you that even if you don't want mass transit and you'd rather keep driving everywhere for everything, you do realize that the economics of this lifestyle are totally unsustainable? Whether you like it or not, human civilization is going to have to completely reorganize its energies and economies - and fate doesn't really give a damn if you think it's a hassle waiting for a bus in the rain.

[Gelfin]

But throwing billions into building the Interstate Highways doesn't count, right?

If we could convince lawmakers that ubiquitous public transit served a military purpose, we'd have it tomorrow, no matter how much it cost.

[Ugg]

Uhhh....no thanks. Public transit just isn't going to happen in certain areas. It's scarce in the suburbs, and nonexistent in rural areas. Suburbs might happen if given the funding, but in rural areas, where there's simply not the demand, it's just not gonna happen. And it's certainly not fair to make the people who won't ever be able to use it to pay for it. Any tax increases to pay for mass transit should be either sales tax or income/property tax for the areas that will actually benefit from public transit. That way, perhaps with a few exceptions, people won't be paying for something they can't ever use.

One thing that a lot of exurbanites gloss over in this discussion is the phenomenal costs incurred by all by living "away from it all".

Everyone is paying for the county road that only 100 people use per day. Electricity rates are inflated by the fact that only 100 people are serviced by a line 50 miles long. I could go on and on but rural living costs the rest of society a great deal of money and is in effect, a tax on urbanites.

[LethalWolfe]

One thing that a lot of exurbanites gloss over in this discussion is the phenomenal costs incurred by all by living "away from it all".

Everyone is paying for the county road that only 100 people use per day. Electricity rates are inflated by the fact that only 100 people are serviced by a line 50 miles long. I could go on and on but rural living costs the rest of society a great deal of money and is in effect, a tax on urbanites.
Yeah, we all have tax dollars going to services we never use. For example, I don't have kids but I'm pretty sure money comes out of my paycheck to pay for schools and other services for the rugrats.


Lethal

[yg17]

But throwing billions into building the Interstate Highways doesn't count, right?

And need I remind some of you that even if you don't want mass transit and you'd rather keep driving everywhere for everything, you do realize that the economics of this lifestyle are totally unsustainable? Whether you like it or not, human civilization is going to have to completely reorganize its energies and economies - and fate doesn't really give a damn if you think it's a hassle waiting for a bus in the rain.

Except we all take advantage of interstates, even if you don't drive on them. Nearly anything you buy is delivered by a truck that was on an interstate. No interstates for the trucks to drive on, your stuff either won't get to you, or it will get to you, at a much higher cost due to truckers having to take longer, slower backroads. Last time I checked, a public transit system was not a method of transport used by Wal-Mart.

The lifestyle of driving everywhere for everything is sustainable, if we get alternative fuels. If there's going to be an increase on gas tax to help rid us of our dependence on oil, I'd much rather it be for alternate fuel cars than mass transit. I'll be first in line to buy a viable alternate fuel car, but not so much for mass transit.

One thing that a lot of exurbanites gloss over in this discussion is the phenomenal costs incurred by all by living "away from it all".

Everyone is paying for the county road that only 100 people use per day. Electricity rates are inflated by the fact that only 100 people are serviced by a line 50 miles long. I could go on and on but rural living costs the rest of society a great deal of money and is in effect, a tax on urbanites.

Fair enough on the electricity thing. But the tax money for that county road is mostly going to be coming from the residents of that county, who are far more likely to use that road than someone living halfway across the country.

[Ugg]

Fair enough on the electricity thing. But the tax money for that county road is mostly going to be coming from the residents of that county, who are far more likely to use that road than someone living halfway across the country.

My point is that we're all taxed for things we will never use.

[LethalWolfe]

Except we all take advantage of interstates, even if you don't drive on them. Nearly anything you buy is delivered by a truck that was on an interstate. No interstates for the trucks to drive on, your stuff either won't get to you, or it will get to you, at a much higher cost due to truckers having to take longer, slower backroads.
Fewer people driving means less demand for oil which means cheaper fuel which means cheaper shipping costs which means cheaper goods. Also, fewer people driving means less traffic so less time and less fuel for truckers to get from point A to point B resulting again in cheaper goods.

Also, I don't recall people saying tear down all the existing interstates. People are just saying that there are better ways to spend money than perpetually building highways that will never be able to keep up w/the current car culture in America. Back in 2000ish when I was living in Indiana they started a 10 year plan to widen highways and major thoroughfares in and around Indianapolis to help meet growing traffic demands. Unfortunately the projected traffic growth outpaced the construction timetable. They literally couldn't build/improve the roads fast enough. It's a never ending cycle until you just run out of space. Of course by that point you wrecked the local ecology, pollution is big problem, and the traffic problem, that was never solved, just keeps getting worse. Feel free to visit LA to see how bad the inevitable dead end is.


Last time I checked, a public transit system was not a method of transport used by Wal-Mart.

Last time I checked lots of stuff transported to Wal-Mart required oil and a fairly large mass transit system called "rail roads" to ship goods long distances.;)

Cleaner, alternative fuel vehicles, improved mass transit, generating electricity from renewable resources... there is no silver bullet, IMO. It will take a combination of all of things to get the job done. Cities in windy areas should put up wind farms. Cities near big rivers should build hydroelectric plants. Car companies should focus on cleaner, fuel efficient alt energy cars while urban areas should focus on better mass transit so people are less dependent on cars. Biodiesel plants should be built in all cities that can support them using local organic waste so that the big rigs driving 24/7 across the country will pollute less and require less oil-based fuel. I think the "green movement" really needs to be more of a grass roots, "what works best in your local community" type movement rather than a national, "one size fits all" type movement.


Lethal

[glocke12]

Outside of major urban areas and their suburbs, mass transit just will not work in this country the way it does in other countries like the smaller european ones. Our country is just too large and things are just too spread out for it to be convienient or cost effective.

I live in rural PA, shop for three other people, and have a 25 minute drive to get to the supermarket. THere is no way I could ever use mass transit for that.

As far as raising gasoline taxes go, that will not do anything but destroy our economy and our country. I make good money, but am having trouble scrapping together money for gas. Any higher taxes and I couldnt afford to drive to work. What about the poor people who are having a much more diffucult time with things?

The solution is not all about raising taxes and making everyone take the bus.

We need to forget about oil and invest in alternate sources of energy for our transportation needs. If this had been done ten years ago we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now. Electric powered cells, hydrogen cells, etc....but if we use hydrogen cells what affect will all that excess water vapor have on the environment???

[glocke12]

One thing that a lot of exurbanites gloss over in this discussion is the phenomenal costs incurred by all by living "away from it all".

Everyone is paying for the county road that only 100 people use per day. Electricity rates are inflated by the fact that only 100 people are serviced by a line 50 miles long. I could go on and on but rural living costs the rest of society a great deal of money and is in effect, a tax on urbanites.

lol....so are you saying we should all be forced to live in some urban community where the expenses are distributed more eqaully and leave the countryside to the animals and farms ? Last I checked this was America and people can live where they want.

Furthermore, I live in a very rural area, and my state and federal tax dollars go to pay for all kinds of services that people in urban areas use and I dont use.....

[Desertrat]

mac, there have been funds for planning for mass transit in the Highway Fund for some 30 years. May not be construction money, but there is for planning. And I note that Atlanta's MARTA sold tax-free municipal revenue bonds to pay for that project.

Not all people are suited to living in a dense urban environment. One of the reasons that there is generally less crime in suburbs/exurbs is that there is less crowding. People can more readily avoid those with whom they'd otherwise come in conflict.

Waxing philosopphical for a moment, as if he needed waxing, it occurs to me that throughout a lot of these threads, people are blaming the automobile for the way that people have used the automobile. Sorta like blaming guns for murders. It is people who have demanded cars of the sort that we call "gas hogs" It is people who have demanded cars suitable for six or eight passengers--yet only one person is using that car most of the time. It is people who have created a market for cars which use two tons of material instead of one ton. IOW, I'm grumping about our common societal penchant for blaming the thing instead of how people use the thing.

Self-back-patting time: If it is true that 40% of the energy cost of a car is for its manufacture, you may thank me. In a little over a half-century of owning cars, only four have been bought new, and I still have the last one, a 1985 model. I have no idea of how many have been "recycled" or resurrected from the dead. And most of my cars, even my hotrods, got above-average fuel mileage. A low energy footprint, mostly because I'm a chinchy sumbitch. :D

Back to the regularly scheduled program...

A problem I've seen with mass transit is the lack of thought on the part of those with the authority to set up the system. What good is it to "save gas" if full-size buses run empty or near-empty for 2/3 of their mileage? Outside of rush hour, why not, e.g., minivans?

'Rat

[nbs2]

Riding the train this morning, I started thinking about some of the ideas that have been tossed around here as far as long reach mass transit. There are some hiccups which would need to be addressed.

The biggest issue would be laying track for a service that would not be under continual use, and would not be a significant source of income. The system in Maryland isn't fully integrated like New Jersey, so I can't give you total numbers without putting in some heavy research, but even with our significant ridership we can't afford to grow. Currently, trains are operating SRO for most of their trips, as ridership has far exceeded capacity. Even with many trains operating several bi-levels, we cannot keep up with demand. This is important to note, as our options are to extend the trains or to run more lines. The former would risk exceeding safe capacity at terminals; the latter would require convincing Amtrak/CSX to give or sell more track time. As unlikely as it would be for Amtrak/CSX to give up more track time, it is the only option other than laying new track. Remember though, laying new track requires taking land and planning routes through communities.

Even after laying the tracks, you would have to have enough contingency plans in place for rider who have been heavily affected. One suicide is enough to throw an entire rush-hour out the window. More than once, I can remember train service being cancelled for over two hours. Remember, it isn't the delay, it's the build up. As long as people "feel" they have control over their route and movement, they will prefer personal vehicles over mass transit. I have had days where I was fortunate to have a friend driving home who could stop and pick me up from a station that wasn't mine because train service was cancelled for one reaon or another.

And transit security. As systems build, you need to expand your security force exponentially. While I hate to generalize, new commuters are among the most irritating people in the world. They don't have any idea about courtesy, timing, or movement. They disrupt what every commuter seeks - to travel in peace. In fact, the only people I hate more than the new commuters are the Red Sox fans that swarm the Baltimore/Washington area when they visit the Orioles. Every afternoon that I have to share a train with them, I have visions of lining them up and just shooting them, one by one. And they would well deserve it. Anyway, back to security, there needs to be crowd control and law enforcement. Eating and drinking on the Metro system in DC is verbotten, but people do it anyway. There is no posted information on how to report those folks. Peeing on the train is also forbidden, but there is no enforcement beyond what the conductors can provide.

There are others, but I need to do some work.

[stagi]

i say raise the gas taxes to help fund alternative fuel research, put more money into better solar chips and other ways of getting natural energy. That would be a smart move to start to get us off of crude.

[Erwin-Br]

But throwing billions into building the Interstate Highways doesn't count, right?

You need Interstate's for buses too. And railroads for trains. Here in the Netherlands we have a very dense railroad system, and you don't want to know how much it costs to maintain.

And need I remind some of you that even if you don't want mass transit and you'd rather keep driving everywhere for everything, you do realize that the economics of this lifestyle are totally unsustainable? Whether you like it or not, human civilization is going to have to completely reorganize its energies and economies - and fate doesn't really give a damn if you think it's a hassle waiting for a bus in the rain.

With our current technology you're right. But who says we're still driving on gasoline 10 years from now?

--Erwin

[Erwin-Br]

For the former you have bus shelters, for the latter if you don't have AC all the time you adapt to deal with it, you just have to drink more water.

Yeah, right. Drink more water. Uhuh. That'll prevent me from arriving at work bathed in sweat with smelly stains under my arms that put Steve Ballmer to shame. :rolleyes:

And have you ever been in a crowded bus when it has been raining, and people are wet? Do you have any idea how bad *THAT* smells? Ugh!


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

My boss will be real happy when I stay at home sick after catching yet another flu or whatever virus is hanging in the air.

Right now, I'm hardly ill. That used to be quite different when I had to ride the bus to work, some years ago.

This virtually never actually happens though. I've only noticed it once in catching the bus every day for 6 years.

*shrugs* I have other experiences.

The same applies with cars crawling through the traffic.

Yes, but I'm sitting comfortably with my radio and A/C on. - I'd rather spend 1 hour in a traffic jam, than 10 minutes in a crowded bus.

--Erwin

[leekohler]

Yeah, right. Drink more water. Uhuh. That'll prevent me from arriving at work bathed in sweat with smelly stains under my arms that put Steve Ballmer to shame. :rolleyes:

And have you ever been in a crowded bus when it has been raining, and people are wet? Do you have any idea how bad *THAT* smells? Ugh!

Oh please! We manage to get to work OK here in Chicago in 90-100 degree heat. Use deodorant for god's sake and quit your whining. Buses and trains are air conditioned, you know.



My boss will be real happy when I stay at home sick after catching yet another flu or whatever virus is hanging in the air.

Right now, I'm hardly ill. That used to be quite different when I had to ride the bus to work, some years ago.

Something tells me you're not telling the whole truth here.



Yes, but I'm sitting comfortably with my radio and A/C on. - I'd rather spend 1 hour in a traffic jam, than 10 minutes in a crowded bus.

--Erwin

Really? That's unbelievable.

lee: That reminds me of a famous quote along the lines of "The fastest cure for racism is travel." I had a professor who told us that when you get out in the world, you start to realize that all anybody wants is three square meals a day and a little bit of fun.

It's so true. I didn't realize the extent to which I had issues with race until I moved here. The first time I got on the train, I was one of two white people. I was scared and nervous. That's when I realized I had problems with prejudice. I was completely ashamed of myself. I got over those issues fast though!

[LethalWolfe]

A problem I've seen with mass transit is the lack of thought on the part of those with the authority to set up the system. What good is it to "save gas" if full-size buses run empty or near-empty for 2/3 of their mileage? Outside of rush hour, why not, e.g., minivans?
'Rat
Run buses on cleaner alternative fuels (like liquified natural gas, biodiesel, etc.,) and have a fleet of various sized buses. Big buses for high demand times/routes and smaller buses for low demand times/routes. I've even seen airport shuttle bus sized vehicles used on "rapid routes" where they have fewer stops and are generally geared towards getting people to popular places quickly (malls/large shopping areas, the airport, etc.,).

Again, IMO, it's not about eliminating the "evil" automobile, it's about giving people viable alternatives and planning for the future in a more intelligent, pragmatic fashion.

EDIT:

Even after laying the tracks, you would have to have enough contingency plans in place for rider who have been heavily affected. One suicide is enough to throw an entire rush-hour out the window. More than once, I can remember train service being cancelled for over two hours. Remember, it isn't the delay, it's the build up. As long as people "feel" they have control over their route and movement, they will prefer personal vehicles over mass transit. I have had days where I was fortunate to have a friend driving home who could stop and pick me up from a station that wasn't mine because train service was cancelled for one reaon or another.
How is this any different than accidents or road construction regularly snarling vehicle traffic above and beyond normal? Heck, a typical construction project to expand a road or intersection can snarl up traffic in the vicinity for months. I'd hazard a guess that, generally speaking, people who commute by car rack up more "excessive" commute time annually than people who commute via train. I used to work at a place where on Fridays if I missed my "window of opportunity" to drive home (leave before 5) I'd just end up hanging out or working late until 7-7:30 because typical friday night traffic would double my 60min (12 mile) commute.


Lethal

[Eraserhead]

And have you ever been in a crowded bus when it has been raining, and people are wet? Do you have any idea how bad *THAT* smells? Ugh!

Yes, and with schoolchildren who haven't heard of deodorant yet, and its a bit smelly, but really its not a big deal.

My boss will be real happy when I stay at home sick after catching yet another flu or whatever virus is hanging in the air.

And in a short time if you're exposed to the viruses you won't get ill as frequently if at all.

Right now, I'm hardly ill.

Same here.

*shrugs* I have other experiences.

You could try checking the seat before sitting down ;). Otherwise if its on your foot, well that can happen in the street too.

Even after laying the tracks, you would have to have enough contingency plans in place for rider who have been heavily affected. One suicide is enough to throw an entire rush-hour out the window. More than once, I can remember train service being cancelled for over two hours.

They deal with this in Bombay by just moving the bodies on straight away and keeping the trains running.

and you don't want to know how much it costs to maintain.

I'd love to know actually.

[Thanatoast]

Just read a flock of comments over on rockymountainnews.com decrying the evil RTD, FasTracks and transit in general and tried to post this but somehow the site knew (RMN is the local "conservative" paper) and futzed, so I'm posting it here instead.

Why rail and not busses?

Because 95% of the middle-class won't ride busses. They're bumpy, noisy and stinky. An altogether unpleasant ride. RTD has a much better chance of convincing suburbanites to ride rail than busses. Rail can also accommodate a much larger number of passengers than busses ever could and it easily scales up. It's called planning for the future. Shoot, every car taken off the road by rail is more room for your precious busses (which most of you will never ride) to trundle around in, stopping at lights, belching pollution and generally looking ratty.

Why does it cost so much?

Japan's rail agency actually makes money. You know how? Land development. They're one of Japan's largest developers, making rent on the large retail, commercial and residential complexes that they build around their stations. That's why RTD is "stealing" your land - because you won't approve the necessary taxes to fund the lines that will keep traffic moving. So they're going capitalist and making money the way transit agencies around the world do. And now you're complaining about that, too.

The long-term benefits of rail far outweigh the immediate and sometimes painful costs. However, the potential for economic growth resulting from pleasant and efficient transportation (also the denser, more valuable real estate around the stations) between the suburbs and the city is enormous.

[Eraserhead]

[Buses are] bumpy, noisy and stinky.

That's not true.

Japan's rail agency actually makes money. You know how?

They are also have the second most expensive fares in the world (after the UK).

[valdore]

Hong Kong's MTR subway/rail system also earns a profit, and the MTR Corporation is one of the largest property owners in Hong Kong. The subway fares are very reasonably priced there also.

Granted, Hong Kong and Japan both kind of take the whole idea of urban living and magnify it a few times in comparison to everywhere else, but the point remains.

[Thanatoast]

That's not true.
In Denver it is. Busses rival garbage trucks around here for noise and smoke. Makes it unpleasant to walk down the sidewalk when I'm getting giant diesel engines blasting my eardrums. And the constant stop-go, up/down motion is *much* less pleasant than the Light Rail. I was in London in December and their busses were a whole lot nicer.
They are also have the second most expensive fares in the world (after the UK).Didn't know that. Fair enough. Still cheaper than owning a car I would think...

[Eraserhead]

In Denver it is. Busses rival garbage trucks around here for noise and smoke. Makes it unpleasant to walk down the sidewalk when I'm getting giant diesel engines blasting my eardrums. And the constant stop-go, up/down motion is *much* less pleasant than the Light Rail.

Thats not a general problem its just because you have really ****** buses in Denver ;).

I was in London in December and their busses were a whole lot nicer.

Thats just like most other UK places, which is why I think they are OK ;).

[mithrilfox]

mithrilfox siad, "Americans will have to get over their sense of personal autonomy in their daily travel, and learn to operate in close proximity to others."

Why? There will always be some form of liquid transportation fuel.

I don't know how long liquid transportation fuels will be in use, but the attitude of "my space, my way" when it comes to transportation in the US is VERY dangerous. It is the reason we see so much road rage, and it is the reason we see thousands of cars on busy freeways, all filled with one occupant: the driver. They drive for 20-30 miles or more to get to work, the same back. They drive SUVs and trucks that rarely see use beyond the single driver (and if it does get any, it's just having TWO people instead of one).

We can always criticize each other for wasteful lifestyles, since someone is always more efficient than us and someone is always less efficient than us. However, we need to, as a culture, start to put social pressure on people to stop being unnecessarily wasteful. I see so many totally wasteful practices, and I am not even very knowledgeable about these things! I am the furthest thing from an environmental "nut;" I'm just a guy who realizes we need to be less wasteful and stop the consumer culture.

Some completely wasteful practices that we should discourage:

1) Driving large vehicles holding only one passenger.
2) Millions of vehicles traveling the same areas with only ONE passenger.
3) Driving erratically fast and crazy (wastes gas).
4) Using the AC on mildly warm days.
5) AC/heat inside homes turned up so much that you feel like you're in Antarctica during the summer and in the safari during the winter! Ridiculous.
6) Disposable items... we love to use and throw away. What a waste.
7) Unnecessarily huge amounts of water used for everything. Shower for 15 minutes running the water on full pressure the whole time, watering yards constantly, high pressure while washing dishes when it's not necessary.
8) Computers left on all day long at businesses, including monitors that stay on with nothing being displayed and no one looking at them.
9) Lights on at all times of the day, regardless of the sunlight.
10) Back to cars, we see people getting rid of perfectly good cars in order to buy the newer, more comfortable model, therefore producing more unnecessary waste.

Sure, in the end, if everyone followed good environmental practices, it WOULD change the economy. But we could create a lot of jobs based around the new jobs created. A new rail system across the country would create many news jobs. So would new recycling plants.

The reality before is simple: our current lifestyle is not sustainable. What that means is, sooner than we'd like, we're going to be forced to change. When that time comes, will we have what we need to maintain power grids, water systems, and food distribution? Will we see widespread panic as water rationing cuts water to people who feel they can't live without their twice daily showers? Will food fail to reach areas far outside city limits, causing widespread theft and violence?

Or, more likely, will prices for such things rise so rapidly in such a short amount of time, will we see a complete collapse of the economy in a matter of one or two decades?

All of this stuff is easily avoidable, compared to the costs of not avoiding it. Sure, it may be tough now, but what we SHOULD do now is easy compared to what we would HAVE to do later on.

[Erwin-Br]

I'd love to know actually.

257 Million Euro a year for basic upkeep of only 3000 km of tracks. (Source: http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article853040.ece)

Here in the Netherlands the railways are very heavily used. As a matter of fact, we are in the top 3 with Belgium and the UK.

Public transportation is being used more and more here, which is causing lots of problems. Upkeep is behind, causing safety rule violations and unreliable schedules (trains are *never* on time). And during rush hour, there are no seats free (capacity problem), and you have to stand shoulder to shoulder like sardines in a can. Often you'll have to skip the train and wait 20 minutes (or more) for the next one because there is no room. It's a disaster that's been going on for years.

I don't know how it is right now in your country, but I'd love to see what happens if the need for public transportation increases rapidly in a short time (like 3 years), like it happened here. I think even the most organized transportation company would get in trouble.

--Erwin

[Eraserhead]

257 Million Euro a year for basic upkeep of only 3000 km of tracks. (Source: http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article853040.ece)
Here in the Netherlands the railways are very heavily used. As a matter of fact, we are in the top 3 with Belgium and the UK.

€257 million Euros for a population of 16 million doesn't seem much at all. Its only €16 euros/person/year (that's $25/person/year).

I don't know how it is right now in your country, but I'd love to see what happens if the need for public transportation increases rapidly in a short time (like 3 years), like it happened here. I think even the most organized transportation company would get in trouble.

--Erwin

Our trains are full, and not great, but are slowly but surely improving. We spend a lot on ours though, several billion pounds a year certainly.

[pilotError]

We should tax the car slave dolts who choose to live out in low density car dependent suburbs/exurbs by increasing gas taxes - then channel the money into funding urban/regional transit systems, along with getting Amtrak up to date for inter-city trips.


I don't know about where you live, but here in NY they already do. Not in the form of taxing gas, but everything else. Bridges cost $5-10 per car. The George Washington bridge takes in about $1 million a day in tolls. That's just one bridge (we have 7 other crossings into Manhatten), but our public transportation system is still in heavy debt.

I take the Long Island railroad, it costs anywhere from $180 - $280 / month depending on where you live. Depending on where you work, it's another $20 / week to ride the subway. Even at $5.00 gas, there's no cost savings in taking the train, mostly environmental savings.

Trains really don't work all that well outside of densely populated areas.

What we really need is to start getting rid of politicians who can't save a dime to save their lives and get some people in office who know how to manage money. I'm tired of electing guys whose sole purpose in life is to figure out how to create new taxes to get more out of you. Put some of them into office and make lobbying illegal and watch how fast things progress.

[Eraserhead]

Trains really don't work all that well outside of densely populated areas.

The TGV works...

There are three bands of sensible trains which can be exploited, there's the 3 hour gap where you connect cities that are three hours apart or less and that works well. Then there's the 9 hour gap where you connect cities which are 9 hours apart with a sleeper, which isn't generally exploited, and then there's the 15 hour gap where you connect cities that are 15 hours apart with a sleeper and daytime train to compete against a 5-6 hour flight (at least), which you could do with a modern high speed train. This enables you to in theory connect Europe and China, or East to West coast US by train, and that would only be beaten in "speed" by the red-eye.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I don't know about where you live, but here in NY they already do. Not in the form of taxing gas, but everything else. Bridges cost $5-10 per car. The George Washington bridge takes in about $1 million a day in tolls. That's just one bridge (we have 7 other crossings into Manhatten), but our public transportation system is still in heavy debt.

I take the Long Island railroad, it costs anywhere from $180 - $280 / month depending on where you live. Depending on where you work, it's another $20 / week to ride the subway. Even at $5.00 gas, there's no cost savings in taking the train, mostly environmental savings.

Those tolls should just be renamed to rape. It's essentially $10/car.

I'm still trying to figure out how the MTA and LIRR are in such heavy debt. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[nbs2]

How is this any different than accidents or road construction regularly snarling vehicle traffic above and beyond normal? Heck, a typical construction project to expand a road or intersection can snarl up traffic in the vicinity for months. I'd hazard a guess that, generally speaking, people who commute by car rack up more "excessive" commute time annually than people who commute via train. I used to work at a place where on Fridays if I missed my "window of opportunity" to drive home (leave before 5) I'd just end up hanging out or working late until 7-7:30 because typical friday night traffic would double my 60min (12 mile) commute.

As I sort of buried in my earlier comment, it's an issue of perception. The commuter who "feels" that they have the option of rerouting will be loathe to use the rails again if they get stuck.

The issue that you present above is that if you didn't get out early enough, you would wait out the traffic. For those who use the rails, you run several risks. If I don't get out of work by 6:58 (I'm here until 7 this week), I am likely to miss the train. Missing the train would require that I return to the subway, take it to the terminal station, then have my wife drive and pick me up. On days that I work until 8 (weeks with holidays), we already have that subway route planned. Keep in mind that it takes about 40 minutes to an hour to get to the terminal station. Oh, and we have a kid that we clearly can't leave at home.

Even when I do get out on time, things happen. Trains are cancelled because of equipment failures. Hot rails require the train to operate at 1/4 of normal speed. Last week, all trains on my line were cancelled because of a fuel spill on a highway near the tracks.

In the end, most people prefer to chance it with their own vehicle, know that they control when they leave and how they will reroute in an emergency. For every major traffic even in the DC area, drivers can rest assured that ther will be 4 or 5 on the trains.

Me? I still ride the train.

They deal with this in Bombay by just moving the bodies on straight away and keeping the trains running.

I think commuters would prefer that. If we could get the NTSB to go along, that would be great. But, somehow, I don't think that is going to happen.

Because 95% of the middle-class won't ride busses. They're bumpy, noisy and stinky. An altogether unpleasant ride. RTD has a much better chance of convincing suburbanites to ride rail than busses. Rail can also accommodate a much larger number of passengers than busses ever could and it easily scales up. It's called planning for the future. Shoot, every car taken off the road by rail is more room for your precious busses (which most of you will never ride) to trundle around in, stopping at lights, belching pollution and generally looking ratty.

Sounds like DC.

[Gelfin]

I take the Long Island railroad, it costs anywhere from $180 - $280 / month depending on where you live. Depending on where you work, it's another $20 / week to ride the subway. Even at $5.00 gas, there's no cost savings in taking the train, mostly environmental savings.

If you think that's more expensive than owning a car, you might oughta look at your figures again. Fares purchased monthly are more expensive than the gasoline required to travel the same distance only over the shortest distances. If you're in the $180-280 monthly fare range, you're traveling well upwards of 20 miles each way, and it's costing you less than the gas even if you drive a Prius. Add that additional $100 or so for the subway and you're into the neighborhood of breaking even only if you drive a Prius.

That's just fuel. It doesn't even count cost of the car itself, insurance, parking, maintenance and taxes.

[Desertrat]

mithrilfox, I agree with a lot of what you say in Post #79. But that's not germane to my point, which is that personal transporation will always be available to those who can afford it.

As far as what you characterize about problem facets of behavior, I note that those are more common in dense urban areas. And here we are, increasing the density of urban areas because of the high cost of commuting. You odn't have road rage along I-10 between Fort Stockton and Ozona. :) Or in small towns...

Waste? Yeah, for sure. Think of all the cardboard and plastic that goes into packaging that's wasted. However, consider how much of that came about because of shoplifting. When I was a kid, small items were in bins in the five&dime. Nowadays if you did that in your store, you'd go broke in a heartbeat. IOW, certain problems can be harumphed about, but not solved in any energy-saving manner.

So far, though, we don't have any Chongqing with 37 million inhabitants. (Shudder.)

[Eraserhead]

For every major traffic even in the DC area, drivers can rest assured that ther will be 4 or 5 on the trains.

If the trains in DC are less safe than the cars something is very seriously wrong with the trains.

[Erwin-Br]

Another con of public transportation is that it doesn't run 24 hours. At least, not in our country. Buses stop riding at 23:30 and trains at 00:00. And in some cities or neighbourhoods, you'd better not be on a train station or the bus stup AT ALL, when it's getting dark. :(

--Erwin

[Eraserhead]

Another con of public transportation is that it doesn't run 24 hours. At least, not in our country. Buses stop riding at 23:30 and trains at 00:00.

Especially with buses that sucks, I'm surprised they don't run later.

And in some cities or neighbourhoods, you'd better not be on a train station or the bus stup AT ALL, when it's getting dark. :(

--Erwin

There are also some cities and neighbours where you shouldn't be at all after dark, at least at train/bus stations its possible to police them with lighting camera, and at train stations, staff.

[LethalWolfe]

As I sort of buried in my earlier comment, it's an issue of perception. The commuter who "feels" that they have the option of rerouting will be loathe to use the rails again if they get stuck.
.
.
.
In the end, most people prefer to chance it with their own vehicle, know that they control when they leave and how they will reroute in an emergency. For every major traffic even in the DC area, drivers can rest assured that ther will be 4 or 5 on the trains.

Yes, I do agree that one of the big obstacles to mass transit in the US is people getting over mental roadblock that cars equal freedom and only people who can't afford cars take public transpo. Years ago in college I spent a semester studying in London and fell in love w/the bus and underground system they have there. I actually felt liberated not having a car. If we wanted to go out we didn't have to worry about traffic, parking (where's the closest parking, how much is it, did we park in a safe area, etc.,) or picking a designated driver. And if we wanted to bar hop or head to a different area of town we didn't have to worry about what to do w/the car. Also, while I was ridding the tube or a bus I could read a book, do class work, or listen to music and zone out for the duration of the trip. Living in LA I'd kill for a decent public transpo system. There are many times I end up just staying home 'cause just going out can be such a chore.

There are of course instances where a car offers more flexibility than public transpo, but what I think many people don't realize (because they've never experienced good public transpo) is how nice *not* needing a car can be.


Lethal

[Daveman Deluxe]

To add my two bits, it's worth mentioning that if you need a car occasionally but can normally get by without, car rental or zipcar (www.zipcar.com) are workable solutions. People often overlook that.

[SactoGuy18]

What car-lovers/public transportation haters don't realize is that you won't have much of a choice in the future. Oil is a finite resource. You won't have your cars forever. Yes, alternative fuels could help, but mass transportation is the future.


Oh please!

If you're talking making motor fuels from liquid petroleum, I might agree about that possibly running out, but don't forget that the technology is almost in place to make motor fuels from coal, which there are plentiful supplies around the world. Also, since perhaps the most important motor fuel--diesel fuel--can be produced from biomass sources (after all, Rudolf Diesel's prototype engine ran off peanut oil!), we have the technology to eventually produce most of our diesel fuel requirements from oil-laden algae and even plant cellulose, both of which are renewable resources.

Also, thanks to nanotechnology, we are within ten years of producing an electric car that can effectively replace the internal combustion engine by using far smaller battery packs than now needed for an electric car. (GM's EV-1 failed because its battery pack requirements bordered on ridiculous.)

[Badandy]

(GM's EV-1 failed because its battery pack requirements bordered on ridiculous.)


But...but..but...i thot it waz the oil compuhknees in the conspearacy?