Post by: Manedwolf on March 20, 2008, 09:19:49 AM
Quote
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339589,00.html
If they want that so bad, why don't they, themselves, donate their own money every time they buy gas? No, no, they must have mandated wallet rape for all!
RAISE TAXES! It's the democrat way!
Post by: charby on March 20, 2008, 09:29:38 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 20, 2008, 09:31:10 AM
I think a tax deduction for vehicles that achieves over 30 MPG would probably fly a lot better than a .50 per gallon tax.
Democrats never lower taxes. They're addicted to them.
Post by: Paddy on March 20, 2008, 09:47:39 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 20, 2008, 09:53:06 AM
Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works. If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops. Use the money to develop alternate energy sources. That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.
So you've become a democrat now? Given your hatred for Republicans, I'm not surprised.
TAX THEM! TAX THEM ALL! TAXES PRECIOUSSS....
Post by: Werewolf on March 20, 2008, 10:01:49 AM
Mass transit - nice thought but it isn't gonna appear out of thin air.
Really fuel efficient autos - again nice thought but overnight they're not gonna be here.
Cars that don't use gas - their energy comes from somewhere and my bet it would be electric. What do most electric plants burn to make electricity - a petroleum product and since the conversion losses from petroleum to electricity and back into auto motion is more than from petroleum to gas to motion going electric isn't gonna solve anything.
Hydrogen - when someone comes up with a cheap way to extract it then yes but once again the infrastructure to deliver it isn't gonna appear overnight.
All that dingell will accomplish if he pushes this thru is to guarantee he won't be reelected.
And on and on. Americans are addicted to having a personal means of transport. Not gonna give it up without a fight. All tacking extra taxes on that transport is gonna do is tick off the people.
Post by: Paddy on March 20, 2008, 10:03:27 AM
Post by: Standing Wolf on March 20, 2008, 10:47:20 AM
Quote
Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going?
Don't you just hate it when people start following the money?
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 10:48:19 AM
Actually, my position is strongly pro American and very patriotic since the purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. That would be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?
And you purpose is misguided for that tax won't do anything of the sort. I noticed that you didn't say you wanted to put an import tax on foreign oil. The problem is that our own government is the biggest impediment to domestic oil development and production. You are asking the robber to guard the bank. You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence. Who do you think is paying that extra tax? Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history. Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks. Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars?
I work in Freeport, TX. No bus service here. There are chemical plants all over this entire area with associated service companies and contractors. There are plants all up and down the Texas Gulf Coast. None of those industrial areas have bus service or trains or anything. There are thousands of workers around Beaumont, the Houston Ship Channel, Freeport, and Corpus Christi that would have no choice but eat that cost. Think about who you are going to hurt before you think up these stupid taxes.
My uncle is a pipeline welder. He has to dive his truck and welding machine at the jobs. Part of the way things are done. No battery operated car is going haul that. My Dad is retired now, but he was essentially a construction foreman for a fire protection company. He had to drive out to the plants to be at work. He used his truck on the job.
I think some of you have really warped views of who it is that is driving around. It isn't all yuppies driving their big SUV downtown.
Post by: El Tejon on March 20, 2008, 10:49:30 AM
There are far too many people on my roads (I pay enough taxes that I have purchased them all). Get back in your wagon mouth-breather and off my roads!
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 10:57:39 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 20, 2008, 11:14:13 AM
Post by: johnster999 on March 20, 2008, 12:01:59 PM
Post by: grampster on March 20, 2008, 12:22:41 PM
If there had been enough commons sense, guts, and brains to get on that bandwagon in 1974 when it became obvious that importing energy was going to be a drag in years to come we'd have solved several problem; two of which would have been energy independence and all the middle east would have meant for the world was it would be a good place to buy rugs and bet on camel races.
PS: Along with the above we'd have built several more nuclear plants and build and elevated, high speed electric train system as many, many wise people were and are (still) talking, but not doing anything about, we'd have a state of the art cheap way of traveling around the country.
Post by: roo_ster on March 20, 2008, 12:28:23 PM
Actually, my position is strongly pro American and very patriotic since the purpose is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. That would be a good thing, wouldn't you agree?
Uh, nope.Socialist means to a "patriotic" end.
Post by: Paddy on March 20, 2008, 12:34:45 PM
Quote
You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence. Who do you think is paying that extra tax? Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history. Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks. Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars?
And why is that? What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's? Where did it go? Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment? Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's? Why do the multinational corporations hold labor in so much contempt, they'd rather ship it overseas than pay an American an honest wage?
I've got a bunch of other questions for you, but I'd like to hear your answers to those.
Post by: grampster on March 20, 2008, 12:48:53 PM
"And why is that? What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's? Where did it go? Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment? Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's? "
Nope! That was caused by the Radical Feminist Movement which sold the song and dance that a woman was not complete unless she had a career other than being the anchor that held the family together. (Before anyone gets their undies in a bunch, I support equal pay for equal work; always have.) That movement, rather than being a vehicle for equal pay for equal work and supporting the value of being a mother/homemaker, over time, dumped millions of new workers into the work place and caused a large increase in demand. That caused prices to rise because of the Law of Supply and Demand. Over time the economic shift from one worker in the household having the ability to support the family turned into the need for two workers in the household.
We became more of a consumer society than we were before. We became used to the fact we could have all of the toys that demand drove and here we are. And to think, George effing Bush gets all the credit.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 01:04:39 PM
Quote
You are also punishing a lot of poor and middle class blue collar workers for your misguided dream of reducing foreign oil dependence. Who do you think is paying that extra tax? Look at all the small towns and industrial areas that haven't seen a public bus in their history. Look at the low income blue collar guys driving 10 year old trucks. Do you think they can all afford new low mileage cars?
And why is that? What happened to the middle class blue collar worker's prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's? Where did it go? Why could one man working a blue collar job back then raise and feed a family and make a house payment? Could it have something to do with what was done to him by his government during the 80's? Why do the multinational corporations hold labor in so much contempt, they'd rather ship it overseas than pay an American an honest wage?
I've got a bunch of other questions for you, but I'd like to hear your answers to those.
You want to fix problems caused by govt by passing even more laws and more taxes. Then you want to get on some complaint rant about other problems caused by that same government? I see a logic problem here.
A blue collar worker CAN feed a family and make a house payment now. I work with guys who do so every day and most of them are doing just fine. Who do you think runs these chemical plants down here? It isn't us engineers. Notice that I did not say that guys can do the same jobs as they did in the 60's and make the same value in pay as they did then. Markets change and labor markets change also. In the plants also, the nature of a lot of the jobs has changed. Some things are the same and others are completely different. Guys may also not be able to work in the same area of the country they did 30 years ago either. That is the nature of things.
Now just to answer another question: I don't think blue collar guys are going to be able to live the same lifestyle as yuppies or college educated people who have valuable skills. On the other hand, some of the skilled technicians I work with probably make more money than the average English major.
Personally, I think some of that might change. One of the problems we have in this area is a shortage of really highly skilled guys who give a damn and want to be the best at their job. Really good welders are hard to find. Really good instrument technicians and high voltage electricians make pretty dang good money. I believe the main guy who does our Control System programming/tuning doesn't have a college degree, but he is extremely good and I know he makes a good deal more than I do. Really good control system guys are hard to find and demand good salaries. I know our guy started out working on offshore oil rigs out of Louisiana. Not the best shift schedule.
Post by: Paddy on March 20, 2008, 01:24:36 PM
Quote
So you admit that your half baked idea wouldn't accomplish anything close to what you intended.
I 'admit' no such thing. I asked you some questions that you haven't answered. Instead, you've given examples of union jobs!!! I didn't ask about union jobs, I asked about the American blue collar worker. Now if your point is that labor is undervalued and underpaid unless it comes from a union member, I agree.
grampster, you get further out all the time. Now the destruction of the middle class, according to you, is the result of the Radical Feminist Movement.
I don't know whether to classify that as hilarious or pathetic. 
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 01:29:51 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 01:38:36 PM
The financial issues that encourage corporations to outsource to other countries can also be laid at the feet of your wonderful Federal Govt. The payroll taxes and other regulations encourage companies to minimize the number of workers. In addition, companies move headquarters overseas because our govt taxes corporations on their profits here as well as profits overseas. If they move offshore, they only get taxes for profits made here. A lot of the regulations put in place since the 60's to protect workers have added to the overhead of companies and increased the cost of labor. Not only to skilled technicians make more now than they used to, but the total cost to the company per employee is more.
I really doubt your local state govts are blameless either. A lot of the problems with unions can be laid at their feet.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 20, 2008, 01:40:12 PM
Post by: Paddy on March 20, 2008, 01:52:29 PM
A .50 cent tax ain't nothin' compared to the doubling of gas prices over the last few years. That single ripoff has a way more destructive effect on working people than any other one thing (and there are many). GAs prices have doubled for several reasons, but the primary ones are: 1) We've gone from the largest creditor nation in the 70's to the largest debtor nation today. 2) We've sent tons of our money over to China in exchange for their cheap third world plastic fantastic made in sweatshops crap. So they have plenty of money to compete with us for oil. 3) Mergers and Acquisitions. Oil companies are once again becoming monopolies. We need another Theodore Roosevelt to bust 'em up, just like he did with Standard Oil and others.
You complain about payroll taxes? I agree. And do you know where the largest payroll tax came from? Ronald Reagan impose the biggest increase on social security taxes before or since. It amounted to $trillions, which he and Greenspan ripped off and spent.
And what else? Oh yeah, you don't like 'regulations'. Thinks like workplace safety standards and worker's comp. It's too burdensome for the fatcat college educated oil company executive and owning yuppies you have such disdain for. You think if a man is hurt on the job with substandard equipment, he should just be tossed out on the street, like they do in China? That's not the way we do things in the U.S.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on March 20, 2008, 01:56:43 PM
Quote
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
The second part of that's probably true - we have a helluva lot better roads than most/any other countries. We also have better drivers... I think. Some foreign drivers seem downright psychotic.But I could swear that the first part was pure BS. Pretty sure industrial pollution beats the heck out car pollution.
Also... on this general issue, it is my belief that laws like this are due to those dirty rotten old people (hereafter DROPs, those politico numbskulls that do these stupid things). Back in the 60s or 70s or some other era of immense evil, lousy movies, recreational drugs, and horrific haircuts, those DROPs would drive around town. For fun. They believe this still happens.
It doesn't happen much anymore. Younger folks drive with a destination in mind (college, job, food, girlfriend, Eliot Spitzer's hooker), not with the objective being 'to drive'. You spend the money saved on gas (saved by driving with a destination) on beer, food, ammo, or Eliot Spitzer's hooker. That's why gas prices don't effect gas consumption.
As my hero once said: "They are stupid... and they are condemned" - the former Iraqi Information Minister.
Post by: Strings on March 20, 2008, 06:41:18 PM
I make my living on the road, driving from customer to customer. What I pay to fill up my bike now is what I used to pay to fill my car. And you're saying this is a good thing?
Post by: MechAg94 on March 21, 2008, 04:49:59 AM
A few posts back you were singin' the blues about laying any mo' taxes on the po' blue collar working folks with the 10 year old trucks, yada, yada. Now you're telling me they're doing fine. Which is it?
A .50 cent tax ain't nothin' compared to the doubling of gas prices over the last few years. That single ripoff has a way more destructive effect on working people than any other one thing (and there are many). GAs prices have doubled for several reasons, but the primary ones are: 1) We've gone from the largest creditor nation in the 70's to the largest debtor nation today. 2) We've sent tons of our money over to China in exchange for their cheap third world plastic fantastic made in sweatshops crap. So they have plenty of money to compete with us for oil. 3) Mergers and Acquisitions. Oil companies are once again becoming monopolies. We need another Theodore Roosevelt to bust 'em up, just like he did with Standard Oil and others.
You complain about payroll taxes? I agree. And do you know where the largest payroll tax came from? Ronald Reagan impose the biggest increase on social security taxes before or since. It amounted to $trillions, which he and Greenspan ripped off and spent.
And what else? Oh yeah, you don't like 'regulations'. Thinks like workplace safety standards and worker's comp. It's too burdensome for the fatcat college educated oil company executive and owning yuppies you have such disdain for. You think if a man is hurt on the job with substandard equipment, he should just be tossed out on the street, like they do in China? That's not the way we do things in the U.S.
Hey, don't try to dump this back on me. You were the one wanting to add an poorly conceived tax on America. You are the one complaining about evil corporations dumping on American workers. I was just addressing that a bit and trying to point out a few things. You also seem to be assuming a lot about what my views are. Like I said, start a new thread on some of that so we can get everyone into it. A .50 cent tax ain't nothin' compared to the doubling of gas prices over the last few years. That single ripoff has a way more destructive effect on working people than any other one thing (and there are many). GAs prices have doubled for several reasons, but the primary ones are: 1) We've gone from the largest creditor nation in the 70's to the largest debtor nation today. 2) We've sent tons of our money over to China in exchange for their cheap third world plastic fantastic made in sweatshops crap. So they have plenty of money to compete with us for oil. 3) Mergers and Acquisitions. Oil companies are once again becoming monopolies. We need another Theodore Roosevelt to bust 'em up, just like he did with Standard Oil and others.
You complain about payroll taxes? I agree. And do you know where the largest payroll tax came from? Ronald Reagan impose the biggest increase on social security taxes before or since. It amounted to $trillions, which he and Greenspan ripped off and spent.
And what else? Oh yeah, you don't like 'regulations'. Thinks like workplace safety standards and worker's comp. It's too burdensome for the fatcat college educated oil company executive and owning yuppies you have such disdain for. You think if a man is hurt on the job with substandard equipment, he should just be tossed out on the street, like they do in China? That's not the way we do things in the U.S.
Post by: K Frame on March 21, 2008, 05:59:43 AM
Why do you all hate America so much?
Post by: longeyes on March 21, 2008, 06:20:47 AM
Most of the Democrats' most favored constituents don't strike me as the bicycle-riding type, frankly.
Post by: Paddy on March 21, 2008, 06:45:01 AM
Got it.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 21, 2008, 06:58:48 AM
Raising taxes never accomplished a damned thing but raising taxes.
Post by: Scout26 on March 21, 2008, 07:26:23 AM
Quote
Were democrats dropped on their head as children or something?
Nope, MW, they were dribbled......
Post by: grampster on March 21, 2008, 10:13:36 AM
"grampster, you get further out all the time. Now the destruction of the middle class, according to you, is the result of the Radical Feminist Movement. rolleyes I don't know whether to classify that as hilarious or pathetic. laugh"
Apparently you weren't paying much attention to the fall out caused by radical feminists. They sold the siren song of careerism in the place of family. It started in the 60's and was fueled by the beginnings of the energy crunch that began in the early 70's. Our best and brightest on both sides of the aisle refused, were too stupid, or were frightened into doing absolutely nothing about dealing with the cultural changes that were occurring along along with the looming energy problems that the paradigm of mass consumerism would bring because of the laws of supply and demand falling into place. None of them anticipated the power that oil money would bring to the tribalist overlords in the Middle East.
In fact House of Saud oil money was used to bribe the Wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia. If we'd gotten serious about exploiting within, and along the coast of America our rich supplies of coal, oil and gas as well as nuclear power 30 some years ago, we would have been better able to handle the cultural change that occurred. Thanks to obstructionist democrats and RINO's and bending over for the radical environmentalists, here we are.
Handled properly, free trade should bring more prosperity to America. Sadly your, primarily, Democrat friends along with the RINO's managed to screw that up as well by not insisting on some tit for tat, rather than throwing open the floodgates. It also occurs to me, your friend Clinton was in office when NAFTA was OK'd, if that even matters now.
Post by: Barbara on March 21, 2008, 10:50:27 AM
Post by: Strings on March 21, 2008, 12:19:44 PM
Suddenly, you have latch-key kids that have little or no supervision after school, parents that are both so tired after working all day that they can't really parent, folks that are so driven by consumerism that family becomes an afterthought... like I said, lots of problems.
Of course, this all could've been avoided by skipping that whole "womens' sufferage" thing...
Yes, I know that there are lots more causes than just the massive "careerism" push the radical feminists made. But it WAS a major contributing factor. Even more so, since the way it was handled was poor, and the consumerism push that came along didn't help matters.
You have to remember, Barbara, that you're something of an oddball: a parent that cared about their kids, and did what was "right for the family", not just what was "right for you". I get to see LOTS of kids that the parents made the decisions the opposite way...
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 21, 2008, 03:30:01 PM
Everything old is new again, go figure.
Maybe when we run out of liquified prehistoric algae and zooplankton (latest estimate around 2039), we can go drill Europa or Pluto for hydrocarbons? We'll definitely need tax revenue for that.
Post by: Barbara on March 21, 2008, 04:37:46 PM
For me, its not any less of a danger than the nutjobs who think guns shouldn't be allowed in schools and hospitals because they're scary.
Post by: Strings on March 21, 2008, 09:48:01 PM
Post by: LadySmith on March 22, 2008, 04:19:31 AM
Not saying you should. Saying that there might have been some things handled better by society, in transitioning from "woman's place is in the home" to "woman's place is on the job"...
Please expound upon this because I come from a long line of women who had to work, where staying at home was not an option and for whom the concept of being a stay-at-home mom was practically a myth. Back to the OP, I suspect a successful gas tax would trigger a backlash against environmental movements and policies that prevent us from utilizing our own oil resources.
Post by: Werewolf on March 22, 2008, 07:00:11 AM
Back to the OP, I suspect a successful gas tax would trigger a backlash against environmental movements and policies that prevent us from utilizing our own oil resources.
Hmmmmm...That seems very much like a GOOD thing?
Post by: grampster on March 22, 2008, 12:35:39 PM
Oversimplification. The other political party also had a hand in it as well, but that has been argued about ad nauseum. I offered another example. A cultural change that occurred. My intent was not to offend anyone, but to point out what I observed as I lived through that era. Some folks did not live during those days and only have an historical account which may or may not be entirely without bias. It doesn't get talked about much.
The thing about history is that if it is accurately portrayed, one will discover that society is a complicated thing. A lot of diverse things interact to create a present. Some things which provide good outcomes may be the result of bad planning. Also, as someone once said, the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. So a good idea sometime winds up with unintended consequences that are not so good.
I also placed a caveat in my comment that equal pay for equal work is part of my belief system. Perhaps I should have also said that anyone who wants a job in a particular field, who is able to perform the job, should not be excluded merely because of any multitude of a variation on a human theme. The family unit may not be cookie cut; life creates variations on themes. Many different lives, many different themes. Those are givens in my belief system, sometimes grudgingly, but my life experience taught me that I need to be open to things that are painfully obvious, but not necessarily easily understood. We value education. That means we need to accept the lesson. I changed careers in part because I found myself becoming cynical about the variety of critters I contended with daily.
The prime directive in any national debate should be "What are the unintended consequences?" How do we manage to get to the desired outcome without screwing up other things?
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 01:45:43 PM
1.) The government should have nothing to do with it, except to enforce my Constitutional rights.
2.) Equal pay for equal work doesn't work if the work doesn't go to me in the first place..the exact situation I'd have been in 30 years ago. Or most likely would be in now if it weren't for those radical feminists you dislike (and don't get me wrong..I don't agree with them on plenty of things, mostly because they tend to be socialists, but I give credit where credit is due and my ability to support myself and to have supported my kids came very much on their backs.)
3.) Just because it was good for you doesn't mean it was good. The British treated Loyalists pretty well, too, but that doesn't mean the Colonists were wrong for revolting, you know?
I know its difficult for many of you with dangly bits to get why I'm pretty hard nosed and outspoken about this stuff, but to me, the idea that my rightful place is at home is as dangerous as anything that Sarah Brady says.
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2008, 01:50:51 PM
Not to say I have an answer: it's a thorny problem. Just think the impact should've been looked at a bit closer...
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 01:56:16 PM
The government shouldn't have been studying the impact of it any more than they should have studied the economic impact of freeing slaves..its irrelevent.
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 02:00:14 PM
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2008, 02:03:29 PM
Yes... men can stay at home with kids. I know a couple stay at home dads that are awesome. Unfortunately, there are many cases (going on a limb, I'd say most) where there was no discussion about it: both parents were working, the mother took a bit of maternity leave, then went right back to work, trusting a babysitter to deal with junior...
Could the father just as easily stayed home? Yep... but there is usually no discussion. Or, if there IS discussion, the decision is based on consumerism ("We want these things, so we both have to work"). Sometimes, both parents working IS necessary, I'll grant you. But quite often, the only reason is to afford "things"...
And I said NOTHING about the government doing study. Don't try to put words in my mouth: I'll choose my own, thanks!
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 02:07:56 PM
Post by: Paddy on March 22, 2008, 02:31:41 PM
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 02:33:09 PM
Post by: grampster on March 22, 2008, 03:10:41 PM
I like that. I guess I was opposed to the radical feminist movement mostly because of Bella Abzug's hats.
PS: Barbara, Lynn has been cooking for Easter dinner tomorrow since 10:00 AM. We have 23 relatives and a couple neighbors coming over. She just got out of the shower and I offered to get her a glass of wine and rub her feet. She told me naww. Hey, I tried. (I cleaned the garage cause that's the only place they'll all fit tomorrow, cleaned all the bathrooms, vacuumed and mopped all the floors. So I asked her to get me some wine and rub my feet and she threw a towel at me.
)PPS: E-mail me Michael's e-mail again. I tried to send him a note a couple weeks ago to find out what he and his buds may want. I must have written it down wrong. Didn't work.
Post by: Barbara on March 22, 2008, 03:41:50 PM
Will do on the address..he's bad about correspondence, though. He says mostly there's nothing to do after they're off duty so I sent some card and dice games and a couple of movies. And any kind of goodies because, well, goodies are goodies.
Thank you for keeping him in your thoughts.I went to the post office yesterday to send him some things and the woman there was really grumpy..and then she saw the address I was mailing to and her whole demeanor changed..it was actually very nice.
Post by: Waitone on March 22, 2008, 05:31:30 PM
We are doing it to ourselves.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 22, 2008, 05:48:30 PM
Quote
Environmentalists worry that horizontal drilling, which allows companies to reach previously untapped reserves, could also enable them to suck oil from federally protected lands or fragile ecosystems without being noticed from above.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VHBFEO0.htmIsn't that THE WHOLE POINT?!
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 22, 2008, 07:37:20 PM
I think that quote reveals a lot about what those "environmentalists" are really about.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 22, 2008, 07:56:59 PM
Quote
With oil prices at $110 a barrel, producers nationwide are suddenly taking a second look at decades-old wells that were considered tapped out and unprofitable when oil sold for one-fifth the price or less. Independent producers and major conglomerates alike are reinvesting millions in these mature wells, using expensive new technology and drilling techniques to eke every last drop out of fields long past their prime -- and often in the middle of suburbia.
Kinda like squeezing that tube of toothpaste into a tight little roll for the last little bit inside. Then what, Soylent Green Biodiesel?
Post by: seeker_two on March 23, 2008, 03:44:44 AM
I have yet to get a good answer.......
Post by: Firethorn on March 23, 2008, 09:34:06 AM
I think a tax deduction for vehicles that achieves over 30 MPG would probably fly a lot better than a .50 per gallon tax.
Actually charby, I have to disagree with you.
The best way to reduce consumption in a free market society is to increase the cost of the product you want to reduce the consumption off.
Take your 30MPG vehicle credit. Will it actually reduce consumption? Looking at CAFE standards in the past, not really. Unless the tax deduction is HUGE, people will just ignore it. If it's good, you'll have a lot of people in 30mpg vehicles - but which is better, 2 31 mpg cars on the road with a single passenger each or a single 25mpg car with 2 carpoolers?
Keep the marginal cost of gasoline down, subsidize high mpg cars, and you'll create a situation like in the past where people thought nothing of running 10 miles for a simple errand and not batching trips.
Increase the marginal cost of gasoline, not only will people tend towards higher mpg vehicles naturally, they'll engage in other means of reducing their usage. Carpooling, living near work, taking the bus, only going on one shopping trip every other week rather than twice a week, etc...
Quote from: ManedWolf
So you've become a democrat now? Given your hatred for Republicans, I'm not surprised.
I'm not a democrat, simply addressing how I'd 'solve' the 'too much oil usage' problem in the USA, given my preferences. Given that I dislike mandatory 'standards' and like the free market, the easiest way to reduce gasoline usage is to increase it's cost. The easiest way to do that is to tax it more. That'll spur conservation, alternatives, all that. Putting the money raised towards promoting alternatives would be a bonus. Personally, I'd slap the .50/gallon tax on metropolitan areas and use the money to set up a PRT system.
Quote from: Werewolf
50 cents, a dollar? Doesn't matter. The demand curve for gasoline is so inelastic that people will buy what they need regardless of the cost. There is no other altenative.
It might be short term inelastic, but long term it's at least somewhat elastic. Look at all the more fuel efficient vehicles coming out now that prices are such that the extra cost for the fuel efficiency makes sense - I'm seeing much more in the way of 6 speed transmissions, for example. There's also varying levels of 'need'. I've seen people cut back from multiple trips to stores a week to going to more of a once every other week schedule.
Quote
Mass transit - nice thought but it isn't gonna appear out of thin air.
Really fuel efficient autos - again nice thought but overnight they're not gonna be here.
Really fuel efficient autos - again nice thought but overnight they're not gonna be here.
I like the idea of PRT(personal rapid transit) as I see it as a better solution to replace the car than buses or standard trains, but yeah, that'll take time. Fuel efficient autos have always been out there, and they're showing up now. Heck, fuel costs have reduced demand for the really big SUVs, to the point that profit margins aren't as good for them as they used to be.
Quote
Cars that don't use gas - their energy comes from somewhere and my bet it would be electric. What do most electric plants burn to make electricity - a petroleum product and since the conversion losses from petroleum to electricity and back into auto motion is more than from petroleum to gas to motion going electric isn't gonna solve anything.
Actually, most electric plants don't use petroleum, they use coal. Still a hydrocarbon, but not a liquid from the middle east. That also discounts that we're finally looking at building new nuclear plants.
As for the efficiency, a car that gets 30% is lucky, and that's going by the energy going into the tank, not the energy needed to get the gas to to the fuel pump. An electric car is powered by an electric plant that can get 50-60% efficiency over power lines that get 90+%, modern charging is 90+% efficient, and the final usage is something like 95%. Ending up about 41% efficient overall, which stomps all over gasoline. Not to mention superior pollution control at the power plant(and getting the pollution away from inner cities).
Quote
Hydrogen - when someone comes up with a cheap way to extract it then yes but once again the infrastructure to deliver it isn't gonna appear overnight.
Over on slashdot, there's a saying: Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage method. There are no 'hydrogen mines' or wells. Most of it is obtained by cracking hydrocarbons today, and electrolysis is inefficient. In most cases it's more efficient to burn the hydrocarbon directly or use batteries.
Quote
And on and on. Americans are addicted to having a personal means of transport. Not gonna give it up without a fight. All tacking extra taxes on that transport is gonna do is tick off the people.
Thus my suggestion for PRT.
Note: I wouldn't call high gas prices a good thing, just that it's the only realistic way to preserve limited resources. A 50 cent tax now could spur our movement away from petro fuels by quite some time.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 23, 2008, 12:43:31 PM
Quote
Over on slashdot, there's a saying: Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy storage method. There are no 'hydrogen mines' or wells. Most of it is obtained by cracking hydrocarbons today, and electrolysis is inefficient. In most cases it's more efficient to burn the hydrocarbon directly or use batteries.
That is very right. Most industrial hydrogen production these days is from natural gas steam reforming. There are some sources from off gases from other processes, but most is from natural gas. The producers are looking at coal gassification and other sources, but today it is natural gas.
You would be better off using Compressed Natural Gas or Liquefied Natural Gas instead of hydrogen. Houston had an LNG system for many of its buses in the 90's when they got tax incentives from the Energy Dept to do it. CNG and LNG are still not as energy dense as gasoline and they have a much greater explosive hazard.
Post by: roo_ster on March 23, 2008, 01:21:32 PM
Hmm...
Kinda like squeezing that tube of toothpaste into a tight little roll for the last little bit inside. Then what, Soylent Green Biodiesel?
Quote
With oil prices at $110 a barrel, producers nationwide are suddenly taking a second look at decades-old wells that were considered tapped out and unprofitable when oil sold for one-fifth the price or less. Independent producers and major conglomerates alike are reinvesting millions in these mature wells, using expensive new technology and drilling techniques to eke every last drop out of fields long past their prime -- and often in the middle of suburbia.
Kinda like squeezing that tube of toothpaste into a tight little roll for the last little bit inside. Then what, Soylent Green Biodiesel?
No, the next lest expensive source will be exploited. And so on, until oil is not competitive with some future, yet to be realized, energy source.
My FIL has worked the petroleum industry on & off coming on 40 years. What is happening is not rocket science, it is just economics.
Post by: Tecumseh on March 23, 2008, 07:47:41 PM
Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works. If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops. Use the money to develop alternate energy sources. That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.
My thoughts as well. China asks for at least 40 mpg. I would ask for a $1.00 raise to get people to start car pooling and walking. The energy crisis is real but many US citizens dont realize it.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 24, 2008, 07:42:32 AM
Quote
I'm not a democrat, simply addressing how I'd 'solve' the 'too much oil usage' problem in the USA, given my preferences. Given that I dislike mandatory 'standards' and like the free market, the easiest way to reduce gasoline usage is to increase it's cost. The easiest way to do that is to tax it more. That'll spur conservation, alternatives, all that. Putting the money raised towards promoting alternatives would be a bonus. Personally, I'd slap the .50/gallon tax on metropolitan areas and use the money to set up a PRT system.
You're not doing a very good job of convincing us that you like the free market.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 24, 2008, 08:25:24 AM
Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works. If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops. Use the money to develop alternate energy sources. That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.
My thoughts as well. China asks for at least 40 mpg. I would ask for a $1.00 raise to get people to start car pooling and walking. The energy crisis is real but many US citizens dont realize it.Post by: Manedwolf on March 24, 2008, 08:40:28 AM
Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works. If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops. Use the money to develop alternate energy sources. That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.
My thoughts as well. China asks for at least 40 mpg. I would ask for a $1.00 raise to get people to start car pooling and walking. The energy crisis is real but many US citizens dont realize it.Yeah, that's just great for areas with no public transportation, where neighbors are widely separated and none work anywhere near the same place. Or walking, when it's -20 windchill and several feet of snow.
Hell with them, right? China also has mobile execution vans. You want to use them as something to aspire to?
God, I hate leftists more every day. SELFISH.
Post by: HankB on March 24, 2008, 09:00:29 AM
How 'bout lets us drill and pump our own oil. About two weeks ago there was an announcement of an oil discovery in N and S Dakota and Montana. Liquid kinda oil. The new discovery increases US reserves by a factor of 50. A monumental find. Shortly there after environmental activists announced plans to register the ground grouse as an endangered species. If successful the bird will be used to shut down all drilling activity in the area.
We are doing it to ourselves.
We ARE doing it to ourselves . . . We are doing it to ourselves.
* Don't pump oil in ANWR - it's pristine, 1000 miles from nowhere, and won't solve our needs 100% forever.
* Don't build wind farms off Cape Cod, they'll ruin Ted Kennedy's view.
* Don't build wind farms in S. Texas, they'll endanger migrating birds.
* Don't mine coal which we have in abundance, it ruins the environment.
* Don't build coal-fired power plants, they emit greenhouse gasses.
* Tear down hydropower dams where possible, so fishies can get upstream more easily.
* Don't drill for more oil off our coasts, well, just because it's bad.
* Don't develop deep water resources (oil, methane hydrates) in mid-ocean until we figure out how to pay tribute to the U.N.
* Don't build nuke plants - haven't you seen The China Syndrome or heard about Chernobyl?
Don't . . . don't . . . don't. An endless litany of obstruction.
The same people who favor more taxes are often the same people who OPPOSE developing more energy, and then turn around, point their finger, and rant that "YOU ARE CAUSING AN ENERGY CRISIS!!"
What chutzpah.
Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 09:09:01 AM
That means it will work wonders here in the United States!
I know because a liberal earth firster told me that a couple of years ago.
When I asked her how that was going to work for people on farms in Nebraska, small towns in rural central Pennsylvania, etc., she just got a glazed, VACUOUS look in her eyes and said "It works wonders in Europe!"
I've talked to piles of cow crap that were more intelligent.
Post by: Ben on March 24, 2008, 09:57:47 AM
Quote
Don't drill for more oil off our coasts, well, just because it's bad.
This one especially kills me given what China and Cuba are doing right off the coast of Florida. But I'm sure they'll be much more environmentally responsible about it than those nasty American oil companies would be.
Post by: Strings on March 24, 2008, 09:58:42 AM
Post by: Firethorn on March 24, 2008, 11:37:13 AM
Quote
I'm not a democrat, simply addressing how I'd 'solve' the 'too much oil usage' problem in the USA, given my preferences. Given that I dislike mandatory 'standards' and like the free market, the easiest way to reduce gasoline usage is to increase it's cost. The easiest way to do that is to tax it more. That'll spur conservation, alternatives, all that. Putting the money raised towards promoting alternatives would be a bonus. Personally, I'd slap the .50/gallon tax on metropolitan areas and use the money to set up a PRT system.
You're not doing a very good job of convincing us that you like the free market.
Note the quote marks around 'solve' and 'too much oil usage'. If you present me a defined problem, whatever the problem, I'll try to come up with a solution for it. If I'm given a scenario where 'too much oil usage' is a problem that MUST be solved by government action, a sin tax would be my general solution, being the one most likely to solve the problem.
Increasing CAFE standards actually tend to backfire as people respond by driving more. Besides, during price spikes car manufacturers tend to exceed CAFE specs, it's only during times of relativly cheap fuel that they matter. In addition I blame much of our SUV craze on CAFE - the standards produced vehicles most/many people didn't want, while allowing an outlet in the form of SUVs and trucks. Without artificial CAFE standards people will tend to gravitate to the vehicle best suited to their needs without being pidgeon holed.
Increase the gas tax by 10 cent increments until you start getting the results you want. Putting the money gained towards alternatives - such as PRT, is approaching it from both ends. Besides, at least some implimentations of PRT promise to be far cheaper than the current road system, not to mention reduce pollution*.
In a recent thread over on slashdot it was pointed out that repaving a four lane highway starts at $2 million per mile. That's more than the construction costs per mile of track for many PRT proposals - and the PRT system can move as many people on average. Sometimes more, depending on the specific proposal.
On the other end, Yes, I think that we need to start exploiting our own oil and coal supplies. I also think that we need to be building nuclear plants on a almost crash basis.
*Which I DO care about.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 12:05:03 PM
Sure, if .50 cents per gallon works. If it doesn't, keep raising the tax until consumption drops. Use the money to develop alternate energy sources. That, and raise the CAFE standards to something more realistic- say 30+ mpg minimum.
"My thoughts as well. China asks for at least 40 mpg. I would ask for a $1.00 raise to get people to start car pooling and walking. The energy crisis is real but many US citizens dont realize it." Tecumpseh
Let me be blunt!!
Yes, we have a crisis. And people who ascribe to this conservation/tax/control know nothing pap are the main reason why. They are the obstructionists that stand in way of progress, even if the progress is safe, efficacious, and desperately needed. And also the first to howl and point their finger about how much it costs to heat the homes of the po folk. Oh, and by the way, the political thought processes held to by suchlike are more directly responsible for "The War for Oil" as it is so fondly called. Well, that is right. It is about oil and energy in general. But the obstructionists are the ones to blame, if blame is to put anyone's feet. If our country had actually been led in a manner to overcome the looming energy problems in the late 70's, instead of doing everything possible to make sure the problem would not be solved by using reason and gumption and good technology rather than pie in the sky conservation and "alternative energy" sources that are at their best a niche source of additional or stopgap solutions, we wouldn't bother our heads with the tribalist religious fanatics who are in control of a lot or world's energy.
Rather than pitching in and trying to help find ways of properly exploiting our abundant natural resources in and about our great country, all they do is run it down and get in the way. Hypocrites.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 12:29:00 PM
Quote
know nothing pap.........You are the obstructionists........you guys are the ones to blame...........all you do is run it down and get in the way. Hypocrites
Well, that really raised the level of discourse. You might as well just said "I'm all out of ideas, and I give up but I'm not happy about it."
Post by: Manedwolf on March 24, 2008, 12:32:39 PM
Oh silly you, Manedwolf, public transportation works WONDERS in Europe!
That means it will work wonders here in the United States!
I know because a liberal earth firster told me that a couple of years ago.
When I asked her how that was going to work for people on farms in Nebraska, small towns in rural central Pennsylvania, etc., she just got a glazed, VACUOUS look in her eyes and said "It works wonders in Europe!"
I've talked to piles of cow crap that were more intelligent.
That means it will work wonders here in the United States!
I know because a liberal earth firster told me that a couple of years ago.
When I asked her how that was going to work for people on farms in Nebraska, small towns in rural central Pennsylvania, etc., she just got a glazed, VACUOUS look in her eyes and said "It works wonders in Europe!"
I've talked to piles of cow crap that were more intelligent.
Good point. They don't even think.
Increase the gas tax by 10 cent increments until you start getting the results you want.
What, armed revolt? I can tell you what my "results" will be.
I'll have to pay more. I'll have to pay more at the pump to fuel my 30mpg car and be punished because I HAVE to commute, because there is NO public transportation, and carpooling is NOT an option. And I'd have a special finger gesture for the people who made me pay more, until such time as I could vote them the HELL out of office.
You want to RAISE TAXES to solve a problem. You're a statist.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 12:35:50 PM
I don't want to leave anyone out that deserves the castigation.
Doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. The sooner you come to grips with the fact that I'm always right, the better off you'll be. The Rabbi once told you I'm always right, so mark that down!!
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
What needs to happen is more competition in the oil business. Yeah that's right, break up some of these huge international megalopolies just like Theodore Roosevelt did 100 years ago. Instead, under 30 years of Reganomics we've had mergers and acquisitions resulting in fewer oil companies and less competition.
Same thing happened in the banking and financial industries and that's why you have the 'subprime' crisis today. Gubmint of the people, by the people and for the people is supposed to look out for the people. Instead, what we've had for the last 30 years is corporate owned government. Look at the results. Just great.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 01:45:05 PM
Gee, I seem to remember the evil RR only set in motion true growth and prosperity in America by lowering taxes and regulation. (The congress spent the money, not Reagan) Clinton benefited from RR's policies, but soon wrecked them with the largest tax increase ever and set in motion the false economy of liars who ran corporate America in the 90's. (Can you say Enron? CEO hanging out in the White House?)
Clinton worked overtime to destroy Microsoft, a company that was responsible for a paradigm shift in worldwide communication/information/tool for efficiency. Gee, they didn't get destroyed and the market place seems to be able to get around Microsoft. All it takes is govenment getting out of the way and letting the capitalists room to do what they do, which is innovate and create wealth. Two things that government statism/control/tax policy manages to stultify very well.
Post by: Brad Johnson on March 24, 2008, 02:03:15 PM
Quote
A .50 cent tax ain't nothin' compared to the doubling of gas prices over the last few years.
You hate the increase in gas prices but you support an increase in gas prices?
Okay, now I'm officially confused...
Brad
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 02:24:56 PM
Quote
My memory may be faulty but I think a lot of those mergers you talked about happened just as much on Clinton's watch as RR's.
No argument from me. Clinton is the same corporate appendage Reagan was. You can't say 'Reagan was good, Clinton was bad, Bush is good' simply along party lines. The Republicans are not your friends anymore than are the Democrats. They are all beholden to big money and that comes from the multinationals. They all sold out the common man in exchange for power.
And not to get off track but that's why Obama is likely to be the next POTUS. He's appealing to a populist hunger on the part of the people for representation. Nevermind he's the same corporate whore as the other two and will sorely disappoint every sucker who votes for him.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 03:14:51 PM
Post by: Firethorn on March 24, 2008, 06:33:35 PM
I'll have to pay more. I'll have to pay more at the pump to fuel my 30mpg car and be punished because I HAVE to commute, because there is NO public transportation, and carpooling is NOT an option. And I'd have a special finger gesture for the people who made me pay more, until such time as I could vote them the HELL out of office.
Ok, let's look at your scenario here:
At what point would you replace your 30 mpg car with a more efficient vehicle, such as a hybrid?
At what point do you take a second look at carpooling?
At what point would you lobby enough that they DO put public transportation in?
At what point do you either change your career or move closer to work?
Again, we're approaching this from the idea that oil usage needs to be reduced. Given reserves and stuff, you're going to be paying the higher prices sooner or later. Personally, I'd save increasing taxes if we can get alternative supplies up, but in the idea of not being held hostage by the middle east, Russia, or Venezuela we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At the least, reducing demand can help until we get domestic sources back up.
Or, let's put it another way - we knock up the price of gas a bit. This increase goes towards reducing demand through providing alternatives. At some point it works, and people actually start using alternative transit in the cities, saving billions of gallons. This stalls further increases, allowing you to continue. While research improves alternatives to the point of economic feasibility.
While not deployed yet, thus no guarantees, would you use a PRT system if it had a station within a 1/4 mile of your house and work, not to mention stops actually in the Mall, grocery store, etc... Cost for commuting to your work about the same as what gas is currently costing you? Might it even be a bit faster if it's one of the faster systems, say, 45 mph non-stop?
Oh, and my whole point is a gradual, but obvious change, encouraging people to take a long term view to reducing their gasoline usage. Other things would be encouragements to reduce the usage of fuel oil, diesel, all sorts of stuff.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 24, 2008, 07:13:04 PM
I'd state that it really depends on people's comfort level, first and foremost.
I'd also state their interest in energy alternatives is directly proportional to how hard their comfort zone is being squeezed.
Which is why you'll see a lot of whining, but not much serious footwork by consumers at this point in time. $4.00/gallon isn't quite there yet. Just wait, petroleum is a historical flash in the pan in my estimation, a footnote historians will use to describe that period of time between the mid 20th century and when we run dry and go into panic mode sometime later. It reminds me a lot of the song "Last Plane Out" by Toy Matinee.
Quote
Greetings from Sodom
How we wish you were here
The weather's getting warmer
Now that the trees are all cleared
There's no time for a conscience
And we recognize no crime
Yeah we got dogs and Valvoline
It's a pretty damn good time
..
Chorus
Men of reason, not of rhyme
Keep the spoils and share your crime
Goodman, Badman, lost without
A hope for passage on the last plane out
.
There was one repressed do-gooder
And a few who still believed
Yes I think there were five good men here yesterday
But they were asked to leave
So we've kept the good old vices
And laboured to invent a few
With cake in vulgar surplus
We can have it and eat it, too
.
Chorus
.
Men of reason, hide your face
Walking backwards, plays his ace
Goodman, Badman, lost without
A hope for passage on the last plane out
.
Here's a concept you can't dance to
An idea you cannot hum
There may not be an empty seat
When all is said and done
I'm not the guy who sings the hymns
No bleeding heart to mend
But I like the part where Icarus
Hijacks the little red hen
.
Someone said the Big Man
May be joining us soon
But I never was the type to hang
With the harbingers of doom
And this party is addictive
Self-destructive, no doubt
So I hope that someone saves a seat for me
On the last plane out
How we wish you were here
The weather's getting warmer
Now that the trees are all cleared
There's no time for a conscience
And we recognize no crime
Yeah we got dogs and Valvoline
It's a pretty damn good time
..
Chorus
Men of reason, not of rhyme
Keep the spoils and share your crime
Goodman, Badman, lost without
A hope for passage on the last plane out
.
There was one repressed do-gooder
And a few who still believed
Yes I think there were five good men here yesterday
But they were asked to leave
So we've kept the good old vices
And laboured to invent a few
With cake in vulgar surplus
We can have it and eat it, too
.
Chorus
.
Men of reason, hide your face
Walking backwards, plays his ace
Goodman, Badman, lost without
A hope for passage on the last plane out
.
Here's a concept you can't dance to
An idea you cannot hum
There may not be an empty seat
When all is said and done
I'm not the guy who sings the hymns
No bleeding heart to mend
But I like the part where Icarus
Hijacks the little red hen
.
Someone said the Big Man
May be joining us soon
But I never was the type to hang
With the harbingers of doom
And this party is addictive
Self-destructive, no doubt
So I hope that someone saves a seat for me
On the last plane out
Post by: Manedwolf on March 24, 2008, 07:38:52 PM
I'll have to pay more. I'll have to pay more at the pump to fuel my 30mpg car and be punished because I HAVE to commute, because there is NO public transportation, and carpooling is NOT an option. And I'd have a special finger gesture for the people who made me pay more, until such time as I could vote them the HELL out of office.
Ok, let's look at your scenario here:
At what point would you replace your 30 mpg car with a more efficient vehicle, such as a hybrid?
At what point do you take a second look at carpooling?
At what point would you lobby enough that they DO put public transportation in?
At what point do you either change your career or move closer to work?
My car is MORE efficient than a flawed hybrid at highway speeds. There is no advantage to that glorified golfcart in anything but city driving. Which there is not any of there. Plus, I don't fill the landfills with thousands of pounds of toxic lithium waste when the batteries need changing out.
Carpooling? Nobody who lives near me works near me! That's how it is for most people! Plus I leave late sometimes, early others, go to meetings offsite...that makes no sense.
Public transporation? It's freaking NEW HAMPSHIRE. There are a lot of these things called "trees" and "fields" and "whole forests" between the areas of houses. You want a bus to stop at every house that's ten miles apart? Sure, it'd only take you six hours to make it to work every day.
I live where I live because it's safe. I don't want to live "closer to work" because "work" is in an industrial district. For most people here who work in Boston or the like, they can't AFFORD to live closer to work, because closer is $3000 per month for a tiny broomcloset in a bad area. So I could get a crappy job (housing areas only have service industry around them) and not afford where I live, or live closer to work in a crappy area. Please wake up to reality for how it is for most people. Because you're in an ivory-tower fog.
Quote
Or, let's put it another way - we knock up the price of gas a bit. This increase goes towards reducing demand through providing alternatives.
By raising taxes. Which does nothing but raise taxes. You want to price people out of their private vehicles and into public cattlecars by raising taxes. You're a statist.
Quote
While not deployed yet, thus no guarantees, would you use a PRT system if it had a station within a 1/4 mile of your house and work, not to mention stops actually in the Mall, grocery store, etc... Cost for commuting to your work about the same as what gas is currently costing you? Might it even be a bit faster if it's one of the faster systems, say, 45 mph non-stop?
Oh, for god's sake. Yeah, those will come right after the flying cars they promised sixty years ago. Come to think of it, they promised pod-cars 60 years ago, too!
And let's see, I could drive in my car, comfortable and safe, or ride in a public pod that possibly smells like vomit and urine because someone was drunk in it, with an inexplicably wet seat and whatever virus someone sneezed all over it. Or would you raise taxes to keep them clean, too? I went to college in Miami. They had driverless buses called Metromovers. Care to guess what those smelled like?
Go back to your ivory tower and navel-gaze more. The rest of us live in the real world.
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 07:51:58 PM
Quote
Plus, I don't fill the landfills with thousands of pounds of toxic lithium waste when the batteries need changing out.
Your sense of civic responsibility is is indeed a thing of admiration.
Don't worry about it; CAFE standards will sooner or later dictate what you drive. IOW, you'll drive what is available to you and nothing else. And what is available will be determined by forces out of your control. In the meantime, you're simply making a choice; same as the hybrid driver makes a choice. Quote
The rest of us live in the real world.
You live in the world limited by the EPA and the Federal government. That's the real world.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 24, 2008, 07:57:48 PM
Quote
Plus, I don't fill the landfills with thousands of pounds of toxic lithium waste when the batteries need changing out.
Your sense of civic responsibility is is indeed a thing of admiration.
Don't worry about it; CAFE standards will sooner or later dictate what you drive. IOW, you'll drive what is available to you and nothing else. And what is available will be determined by forces out of your control. In the meantime, you're simply making a choice; same as the hybrid driver makes a choice. Quote
The rest of us live in the real world.
You live in the world limited by the EPA and the Federal government. That's the real world.
No, I just look forward to pointing and laughing as California "leads the way" in greenie transportation idiocy and people leave the state in droves.
Just because you live in a crazy place where gas is $1 more a gallon because of the "special blends" the greenies got you to be forced to use, that doesn't mean the rest of the country will follow along.
My car, due to modifications and a header, would be completely illegal in California. And I'm quite pleased with that fact, just like getting an "F" from the Bradyites.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 24, 2008, 08:01:02 PM
Magic Highway USA
Post by: Paddy on March 24, 2008, 08:01:49 PM
Quote
No, I just look forward to pointing and laughing as California "leads the way" in greenie transportation idiocy and people leave the state in droves.
Fine by me and most of us native Californians. We'll just scale things back to match the population.
Quote
ust because you live in a crazy place where gas is $1 more a gallon because of the "special blends" the greenies got you to be forced to use, that doesn't mean the rest of the country will follow along.
Nobody here cares what the rest of the country does. Really.
Post by: roo_ster on March 25, 2008, 05:40:34 AM
Nobody here cares what the rest of the country does. Really.
Paddy/Riley:
Now, now, lying is as much a sin as murder & coveting your neighbor's manservant.
Yes, you do care. Or you wouldn't be in favor of raising taxes / implementing CAFE regs to socially engineer the rest of it.
Firethorn:
MW has your number. You seem to have no problem with social engineering to suit your vision of how everyone else ought to live their lives.
Post by: Paddy on March 25, 2008, 06:02:10 AM
Quote
Paddy/Riley:
Now, now, lying is as much a sin as murder & coveting your neighbor's manservant.
Now, now, lying is as much a sin as murder & coveting your neighbor's manservant.
You may have me confused with fistful. I think that's his particular vice.
Quote
Yes, you do care. Or you wouldn't be in favor of raising taxes / implementing CAFE regs to socially engineer the rest of it.
It works like this: When your activities impinge on commonly used resources (air, water), the rest of us have the duty and right to regulate those activities. You're not going to be allowed to drive around in a 12mpg behemoth polluting the air just because you 'want to', or dump crap into landfills that pollutes the water table. IOW, the common welfare overrides your selfish desires.
Dependence on foreign oil is also a national security concern. The more dependent we are, the more we're forced to enter into military conflicts around the globe, under some false pretense. So, energy usage will have to be controlled by force of law, CAFE standards being one method.
Post by: Firethorn on March 25, 2008, 06:31:27 AM
Manedwolf, You know, your situation sounds amazingly similar to mine? I have a 30mpg car, commute to work on a route that's 90+% highway, etc...
My car is MORE efficient than a flawed hybrid at highway speeds. There is no advantage to that glorified golfcart in anything but city driving. Which there is not any of there. Plus, I don't fill the landfills with thousands of pounds of toxic lithium waste when the batteries need changing out.
Hmmm... Both the Civic Hybrid and Prius are rated at 45mpg highway. Second is that current hybrid batteries are rated for the life of the car; even if they do need replacing those batteries are going to a recycling center, not the landfill. Third is that the batteries aren't LiIon(yet), they're overwhelmingly NiMH with a few lead-acid exemptions.
Quote
Carpooling? Nobody who lives near me works near me! That's how it is for most people! Plus I leave late sometimes, early others, go to meetings offsite...that makes no sense.
I figured that. The idea is that the tax would, eventually, on average, get people to carpool where it makes the most sense first.
Quote
Public transporation? It's freaking NEW HAMPSHIRE. There are a lot of these things called "trees" and "fields" and "whole forests" between the areas of houses. You want a bus to stop at every house that's ten miles apart? Sure, it'd only take you six hours to make it to work every day.
Subtract the 'trees' and 'forests' and you have where I live. I can see work from where I live, I'd just need to get up on the roof with a telescope. Secondly, have you looked at my proposal for PRT in the cities? Under my idea the extra charge on gasoline levels off once the wanted reduction occurs, or even drops. Meanwhile we aren't distorting the vehicle market with artificial designations between 'truck' and 'car' as with CAFE.
Quote
I live where I live because it's safe. I don't want to live "closer to work" because "work" is in an industrial district. For most people here who work in Boston or the like, they can't AFFORD to live closer to work, because closer is $3000 per month for a tiny broomcloset in a bad area. So I could get a crappy job (housing areas only have service industry around them) and not afford where I live, or live closer to work in a crappy area. Please wake up to reality for how it is for most people. Because you're in an ivory-tower fog.
New ideas for a new age, maybe? If you're working in an industrial district I can see why you wouldn't have housing there, but for many downtown areas I wonder what it would be like if they adjusted the tax codes such that building places to be 50% housing and 50% commercial was a good idea. Build a 10 story building, 5 stories of business on the bottom and 5 stories of apartments/condos on top.
Quote
By raising taxes. Which does nothing but raise taxes. You want to price people out of their private vehicles and into public cattlecars by raising taxes. You're a statist.
Ok, fine, I'm a statist. Who advocates opening up our own sources, that might actually decrease prices even with increased taxes. And I'm NOT trying to get people into cattle cars. PRT isn't 'traditional' public transportation.
What's your non-statist solution?
Quote
And let's see, I could drive in my car, comfortable and safe, or ride in a public pod that possibly smells like vomit and urine because someone was drunk in it, with an inexplicably wet seat and whatever virus someone sneezed all over it. Or would you raise taxes to keep them clean, too? I went to college in Miami. They had driverless buses called Metromovers. Care to guess what those smelled like?
Reject the pod* and take the next one, the drunk gets charged, regular cleaning is paid through fare charges. I took public transportation quite a bit when I was younger, didn't have any problems with it. Just use easy cleaning materials. Keep the system up properly and you shouldn't have too much trouble. Keep the transportation fast and convienent and you should have few problems.
*Automatically goes to the servicing depot.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 25, 2008, 06:52:32 AM
Quit taking my damned tax money for your ridiculous World's Fair utopian dreams.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 07:23:39 AM
It depends. My truck is paid for and I work less than 10 miles from home. If I got a different job further away I might change. As it is now, the cost is not sufficient to throw away my perfectly good truck for something else.
At what point do you take a second look at carpooling?
Carpooling is not something you can just get up an do. It requires at least two people who live and work reasonably close together. Not everyone has that situation available. I have carpooled some at a previous job, but both of us had jobs that did not have consistent hours and we lived just far enough apart to make meeting up difficult.
At what point would you lobby enough that they DO put public transportation in?
I live in a small town near a bunch of chemical plants. They aren't going to start a busing system. The workers I work with are from all over the place. The chemical plants are located for convenience to pipelines and barges, not public transportation.
At what point do you either change your career or move closer to work?
I will NOT live next door to the chemical plants. I'll let you do that. The only homes near our little plant are ratty POS's and a trailer park. The closer you get to the port of Freeport, the worse the neighborhood gets.
I tend to agree with Mike. Keep your Utopian dreams to yourself. Let the market figure it out. All that foolish talk of targeted taxes that adjust and such are just that, foolish talk. We are talking about greedy govt politicians here.
Post by: Firethorn on March 25, 2008, 08:13:02 AM
Quit taking my damned tax money for your ridiculous World's Fair utopian dreams.
Nice picture. I especially love the traditional electric train car on the 'sacrificial' table. You know, the trains that have historically lost money left and right and suffer the problems you mentioned, not to mention insane building/construction costs? Heck, I wouldn't find that picture out of place with the train moved up to the pillar and two girls throwing money to the flames.
Personally, I'd like to see at least a test install in some city. There's all sorts of route proposals out there.
I think that PRT has the potential to beat most forms of mass transit AND cars. By using lightweight track, you can use the ability to get non-stop service and higher speeds such that they'd actually be faster than cars, on average. The smaller form factor allows cheaper construction, reducing costs. The on-demand factor helps prevent queuing, favoring a steady stream.
MechAg94, you, like many on this board, aren't necessarily the target audience. Not everybody needs to change - just enough to reduce usage a bit where it's perhaps not as necessary. In your case, what about when the truck is no longer operational? The oil issue, if it is a issue, can be worked on a replacement through attrition basis. In addition, at 10 miles you could be served by an electric vehicle rather easily.
Hmm... 10 miles, I'll figure 15mpg for your truck. 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. That's 5000 miles a year for your commute(estimated). 333 gallons of gasoline. Figure $3.50/gallon, that's $1167 a year. Discounting oil changes, insurance, maintenance, depreciation from the miles, etc... If they could produce a electric vehicle with a ~50 mile range and decent speed for ~$6k it'd make sense for you buy one now.
There's a reason I said 'second look'. I'm fully aware it's not an option for everyone. Still, if gas gets high enough, through tax or pure cost per barrel, there WILL be others who consider it, and some who take it up.
And yes, having a safety zone from chemical plants take precedence. but what about the people who work in standard offices?
Quote
We are talking about greedy govt politicians here.
The biggest reason it wouldn't work out. Of course, at this point I'm having more fun arguing than anything else. I entered this subject on the basis of opposing CAFE standards, which are far more complex and distorting.
Post by: HankB on March 25, 2008, 08:19:34 AM
And here's another throught . . . how many public transportation systems would exist at all, even on routes with the heaviest ridership, if they were required to operate without taxes or subsidies, but by fares alone?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 25, 2008, 08:31:07 AM
It's bullsh*t used by carpetbaggers trying to get money from naive small towns and city elected officials who don't know any better. Nothing exists but bad CG concept art and unworkable concepts.
Let it go. Go sing the Simpson's "Monorail, monorail" song somewhere else.
It doesn't exist. And if it did, it'd look more like this.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 25, 2008, 08:43:07 AM
(Used Sacramento's Light Rail many times myself - clean, polite, very convenient...)
Post by: Manedwolf on March 25, 2008, 08:48:27 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 09:04:20 AM
MechAg94, you, like many on this board, aren't necessarily the target audience. Not everybody needs to change - just enough to reduce usage a bit where it's perhaps not as necessary. In your case, what about when the truck is no longer operational? The oil issue, if it is a issue, can be worked on a replacement through attrition basis. In addition, at 10 miles you could be served by an electric vehicle rather easily.
I am not your target audience, but I will damn well be the target of your idiot gas tax. So will a lot of people who are not your target audience. It doesn't matter how you try to narrow the geographic area, you will be taxing people who don't have options.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 25, 2008, 09:12:49 AM
When the cost of ownership of the hybrid is less than the 30mpg car.
At what point do you take a second look at carpooling?
When there are people that live near me that work at the same location and work the same schedule. Even then it will be doubtful though. Sometimes I have offsite meetings, need to leave work or home early for one reason or another, or have plans after work that don't coincide with my carpoolees. I've done it before. When everything works out, it's great. Other times, it's a hassle.
At what point would you lobby enough that they DO put public transportation in?
When the public transportation planned is useful to me and less expensive than driving my car. FWIW, there is a pretty extensive public transportation system here in NoVa. It's clean, safe, and relatively inexpensive. Unfortunately, it isn't useful for getting me from home to my current place of business and it has many of the same limitations as carpooling with regards to flexibility.
At what point do you either change your career or move closer to work?
When there is an opportunity to do so that is lower in overall cost. Moving closer wouldn't lower my communting costs enough to offset the added housing expense at the moment though.
Chris
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 09:13:37 AM
Hmm... 10 miles, I'll figure 15mpg for your truck. 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. That's 5000 miles a year for your commute(estimated). 333 gallons of gasoline. Figure $3.50/gallon, that's $1167 a year. Discounting oil changes, insurance, maintenance, depreciation from the miles, etc... If they could produce a electric vehicle with a ~50 mile range and decent speed for ~$6k it'd make sense for you buy one now.
There's a reason I said 'second look'. I'm fully aware it's not an option for everyone. Still, if gas gets high enough, through tax or pure cost per barrel, there WILL be others who consider it, and some who take it up.
And yes, having a safety zone from chemical plants take precedence. but what about the people who work in standard offices?
We are talking about greedy govt politicians here.
The biggest reason it wouldn't work out. Of course, at this point I'm having more fun arguing than anything else. I entered this subject on the basis of opposing CAFE standards, which are far more complex and distorting.
Where is this $6000 electric vehicle? I will not buy some piece of crap moped. Your options suck and you know it, no matter how nice you try to make them. I wouldn't even ride a motorcycle to work around here and you want me to get in some piece of crap little electric vehicle. Also, my truck hasn't cost nearly anything in maintenance the last few years and it takes me wherever I want to go without concern about finding recharging every 50 miles. There's a reason I said 'second look'. I'm fully aware it's not an option for everyone. Still, if gas gets high enough, through tax or pure cost per barrel, there WILL be others who consider it, and some who take it up.
And yes, having a safety zone from chemical plants take precedence. but what about the people who work in standard offices?
We are talking about greedy govt politicians here.
The biggest reason it wouldn't work out. Of course, at this point I'm having more fun arguing than anything else. I entered this subject on the basis of opposing CAFE standards, which are far more complex and distorting.
Yes, I agree that you are having fun arguing. It is obvious you are arguing a bunch of utopian drivel that has no basis in reality. You need to preface all your posts with "In the world of make believe,......" for that is about all their worth. But that is just my opinion.
Houston has been experimenting with electric trains. About all they have accomplished is running into cars. I think they are struggling to get the same ridership as the previous bus route. I think Houston is actually ideal for a well managed bus system, but they are dead set on doing trains. I am glad I don't live there anymore.
Post by: Firethorn on March 25, 2008, 09:34:55 AM
In many cases, public transportation simply doesn't go between where people are and where they're going - so it's not an option. Automobiles take you from where you are to where you want to be, at exactly the time you want. Pretty efficient.
I was extremely lucky as a teen - lived within a block of a bus stop that stopped by the mall on it's way downtown. I'd sit and read a book. I'll fully admit to NOT riding as often once I got my car. I still rode fairly frequently though. I'm not especially attached to driving.
Quote
And here's another throught . . . how many public transportation systems would exist at all, even on routes with the heaviest ridership, if they were required to operate without taxes or subsidies, but by fares alone?
Not many, but then, can you name a major transportation system that doesn't owe some of it's existence to taxes and subsidies?
Manedwolf, the one you pictured definitely doesn't exist anywhere but in computers and pretty pictures, but there are some out there that have complete test tracks.
You could paint PRT as 'light rail, really really light'. Combined with technology along the lines of how packages are routed at Fedex and UPS, heck, data packets on the internet*. Smaller size means that automated construction methods can be used more than hand methods such as are generally used on the larger trains. The lighter weight also means that it can be put into more areas at lower expense.
Quote from: MechAg94
I am not your target audience, but I will damn well be the target of your idiot gas tax. So will a lot of people who are not your target audience. It doesn't matter how you try to narrow the geographic area, you will be taxing people who don't have options.
MY gas tax? I wasn't the one who originally proposed it. I only favor it as an alternative to more CAFE restrictions, limits, quotas and such. As for options, people always have options. Looking at recent trends in gas prices, it looks like people are going to end up paying one way or another.
So, would you stop driving when gas hits $4/gallon, maybe $6? $10? It'll happen even IF we drop all the existing gas taxes. Heck, with your short of a commute, you're a better target than Manedwolf or me. I live in a town of 30 and have a 30 mile commute. The idea would be to start increasing the cost of driving inside cities with the best alternate options first. Build them if necessary, starting sooner rather than later. Heck, I'll invest in a PRT system if I find one that I think will make it - showing construction costs in reason, developed software & hardware, good plan. My back of envelope calculations shows that it could be a real moneymaker if done right.
Oh, and on the $6k EV - 'If they could produce'.
Gasoline either has to increase in cost by quite a bit or batteries need to get a LOT cheaper for it to make sense. I won't demand that you ride some sort of moped. Part of the reason I like the idea of electric rail - no batteries.Quote
Houston has been experimenting with electric trains. About all they have accomplished is running into cars.
That's why you'd elevate the system... You don't want it sharing the same space with cars.
Mtnbkr, your answers are the same as mine. My car is fully paid off, I'm saving for the next one. I'm probably not going to replace it anytime soon unless something insane happens. I work the numbers occasionally just because I'm the type to, and if I had to replace my car tommorow it wouldn't be a hybrid, but the numbers get closer all the time. Figure $5/gallon gasoline and $1k less of a price difference and the figures at least start to swap. One problem I've had with people is they object to me using a cheaper baseline car that gets higher mpg than the non-EV 'equivalent' the company produces. I'm like 'But I don't LIKE some of the features!'. Personally, I want a diesel for my next vehicle.
*With additional controls, of course, route should be fully predetermined before setting forth. Unroutable courses should result in an immediate reject/clarification request.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 25, 2008, 09:58:41 AM
Statists never understand how much things really cost.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 25, 2008, 10:12:31 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 25, 2008, 10:14:54 AM
Post by: charby on March 25, 2008, 10:22:40 AM
...but companies will have to change work practices to allow workers to commute via mass transit. Perhaps the 24 hour store will go back to 8am-9pm business hours. Stores will be closed on Sundays again, etc.
I can see light rail and heavy rail working for freight.
...but again business will have to go back to having stockrooms and warehousing goods instead of having daily trucked deliveries.
I remember when grocery stores were about the same size as the produce section of the moder super markets are now, as fuel costs drive up shipping costs I think we are going to have a lot fewer choices in fresh produce or even foods from other parts of the US. As a kid it was very rare to see very much seafood at the meat counter, but there was a lot of frozen seafood, now it is the opposite.
Lifestyles will change when it becomes too expensive to stock certain goods because people will not buy them at the cost that they need to be sold at.
Society is going to have to slow down, global overnight delivery of tangible items will probably fade, office type business may close during the warm months or cold months because it will be too expensive to heat or cool.
Who knows? I do know that our current American lifestyle was created by cheap hydrocarbons.
Post by: roo_ster on March 25, 2008, 01:02:52 PM
And they're falling apart in areas where the transportation dollars get diverted from pothole repair and bridge fixes to idiotic utopian transportation schemes out of the 1957 World's Fair brochure.
Can I hear an "Amen!?"
I want every penny I pay in fuel taxes spent on the roads. Utopian mass-transit schemes can get their own funding.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 01:11:10 PM
Would those pods be more useful if they were actually little hatchback cars that could move off the rail and drive to your destination?
I do agree that we always have choices, but I think you are envisioning a setup where our choices are "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
I also think any solutions you envision should include everyone, not just cities. If you just want to change cities, then make sure the legal changes are at the city and county level, not statewide or nationwide. The cities can pay for their own utopian ideas.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 25, 2008, 01:14:59 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 01:35:37 PM
Telecommuting alone would eliminate a lot of fuel usage.
So would companies moving their offices closer to where their employees live. Does an office building have to be downtown?
Post by: Firethorn on March 25, 2008, 02:06:55 PM
Firethorn, I agree on the idea of elevating the rail. I don't know how much it costs, but it would be more functional.
Due to the light weight of PRT proposals, they're talking about $1-10 million per mile, elevated, which is actually LESS than new road construction/expansion in most cases. They make up their capacity by being constant and using computer control and linear braking systems that allow decelerations somewhere between maximum braking speed for a car with sticky tires on dry pavement and a medium speed crash to reduce following distances to 'insane in a car'. Yes, this means that you should be wearing your seatbelt. Redundant control systems and sensors help ensure that collisions don't happen, essentially eliminating a common delay in many cities(auto accidents). Given a vehicle that's also half the length of the average car and you've got several lanes worth of traffic on a single rail.
Quote
However, rail in general is going to be more costly than other alternatives. I have heard the cost per new rider for rail these days is extremely high. Almost high enough that you could afford to chauffeur all the riders separately. For less cost, you could probably afford to set up a city shop to give free overhauls and improvements to reduce pollution and increase mileage; or subsidize high MPG car purchases.
Which is why I don't normally advocate rail - in 90% of cases it's slower than cars, doesn't necessarily go where people need it to go, the very expense of it means that you can't put enough stations in around the area to service within what could be considered an acceptable area. Except in certain extremely developed areas like NYC, of course.
Quote
Would those pods be more useful if they were actually little hatchback cars that could move off the rail and drive to your destination?
Maybe, but the weight increase would render it much more expensive and therefore less economic. Personally, I'd tend towards making golf cart type vehicles available to rent at selected stations. Make 4 person pods and have foldable seats and you'd have some pretty good storage space. For bonus, design the system with 'cargo pods' that you can load and take to a destination. One idea I had was fast food delivery pods - heck, Pizza Hut(or it's competitors) might make a pod with a pizza oven inside. Load pizzas in the store, and it's delivered to the station freshly baked and piping hot. Though I only see that if you have good penetration IN apartment complexes and such. Oh, and the ability to take pods offline completely. The idea being that you can load/unload while other people get on or off the station(already off the main line) independent of you.
If it reached national level, I could see holding Fedex, UPS, USPS, DHL, etc... over a barrel. It would probably be a love/hate relationship. They can load pods up and get overnight delivery without the air part over substantial areas. Two day would be land without question. On the other hand the company/companies could form their own package service. By my calcs, a pod should take a maximum of 31 hours worst case@100mph in the CONUS. NYC to San Fran would be 26 hours.
Quote
I do agree that we always have choices, but I think you are envisioning a setup where our choices are "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
To be perfectly honest, I think that I'll live to see the end of the domination petroleum fuels have had over our movement. So yes, it's very much a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. Therefore it's in my best interest to see as smooth of a transition as possible.
Quote
I also think any solutions you envision should include everyone, not just cities. If you just want to change cities, then make sure the legal changes are at the city and county level, not statewide or nationwide. The cities can pay for their own utopian ideas.
To be perfectly honest, I envision putting PRT everywhere, just starting with the cities where you have the population to justify them, a maximum population for maximum potential passenger miles. The ideal is that once the system reaches a certain size it becomes self supporting, profitable, at which point you'd be able to expand the system without using public money. Malls, for example, would pay to be connected fairly early on in most cases. Start with the inner cities, then move on to park&ride in the Suburbs, then concentrate on getting stations within walking distance. I'd even see going so far as to connect various cities together in a web if it's capable of high speeds.
That'll free up a LOT of oil to feed those of us out in the boonies, or even get it down to the point that biodiesel/ethanol can work.
Paddy, would you consider PRT to be 'last century'? After all, it uses some ideas from ethernet packing routing!
Quote from: MechAg94
So would companies moving their offices closer to where their employees live. Does an office building have to be downtown?
Very true. Heck, Dad used to work at a business that had it's offices, not downtown, but over at the mall(not storefront, what I'd call an 'auxillery' building). Heck, even if the office is downtown, the expense of housing in the area is a sign that there's not enough of it. Like I said, adjust things so that housing is easier/cheaper to create and maintain there. The price will eventually drop, more people will live where they don't really need a car. As for telecommuting, we aren't quite there yet, some can't handle it. One thing I'll also point out is that once telecommuting takes hold - there's little preventing the job from being outsourced to India.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 04:52:32 PM
To be perfectly honest, I think that I'll live to see the end of the domination petroleum fuels have had over our movement. So yes, it's very much a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. Therefore it's in my best interest to see as smooth of a transition as possible.
I really don't think I'll live to see the end of oil. If we do run out, I think it will be a longer way off than that. IMO, we will come up with technological alternatives first.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 25, 2008, 05:01:09 PM
Very true. Heck, Dad used to work at a business that had it's offices, not downtown, but over at the mall(not storefront, what I'd call an 'auxillery' building). Heck, even if the office is downtown, the expense of housing in the area is a sign that there's not enough of it. Like I said, adjust things so that housing is easier/cheaper to create and maintain there. The price will eventually drop, more people will live where they don't really need a car. As for telecommuting, we aren't quite there yet, some can't handle it. One thing I'll also point out is that once telecommuting takes hold - there's little preventing the job from being outsourced to India.
Personally, I don't think people will choose to live in compact housing areas if they have a choice. I think suburbs and urban sprawl happens precely because people want their little piece of space. A guy I work with used to live in the Netherlands. They apparently got rid of land use laws that prevented housing development of farmland so that most everyone lived in huge apartment blocks that housed thousands. Since those land use laws went away, they have been seeing a great deal of housing development as people try to get out of those apartment blocks. It just seemed to me to be a good example of what people will do if given a choice.
Telecommuting is not an option for me. I need to be at the plant to do my job. It would be tough for me to even figure one day a week. 4 ten hour days is a more workable option.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 25, 2008, 05:12:34 PM
So would companies moving their offices closer to where their employees live. Does an office building have to be downtown?
People used to live downtown, then they moved out into the 'burbs. Also, companies like to be near other companies or near mass transit, airports, etc.
That said, a company I used to work for would plot all its employees on a map and pick a central location when moving to a new office. Not sure how common that is, but they did it.
Chris
Post by: erictank on March 25, 2008, 05:40:00 PM
MechAg94, you, like many on this board, aren't necessarily the target audience. Not everybody needs to change - just enough to reduce usage a bit where it's perhaps not as necessary. In your case, what about when the truck is no longer operational? The oil issue, if it is a issue, can be worked on a replacement through attrition basis. In addition, at 10 miles you could be served by an electric vehicle rather easily.
Hmm... 10 miles, I'll figure 15mpg for your truck. 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. That's 5000 miles a year for your commute(estimated). 333 gallons of gasoline. Figure $3.50/gallon, that's $1167 a year. Discounting oil changes, insurance, maintenance, depreciation from the miles, etc... If they could produce a electric vehicle with a ~50 mile range and decent speed for ~$6k it'd make sense for you buy one now.
Hmm... 10 miles, I'll figure 15mpg for your truck. 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. That's 5000 miles a year for your commute(estimated). 333 gallons of gasoline. Figure $3.50/gallon, that's $1167 a year. Discounting oil changes, insurance, maintenance, depreciation from the miles, etc... If they could produce a electric vehicle with a ~50 mile range and decent speed for ~$6k it'd make sense for you buy one now.
Except that, most likely, it wouldn't. You're forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that many (Most? Just about all?) need far more capacity at certain intervals than what they "usually" use. I don't know about Manedwolf or MechAg94, but I need a vehicle that will carry a modest amount of low-density cargo (greater than 1 45-gallon wheeled bin, plus assorted other stuff) plus up to 4 people, and which will allow me to travel upwards of 1000 miles at a shot, in virtually any weather/road conditions up through an upstate-NY winter. For this purpose, I have chosen a Subaru Forester, and it will do all of that admirably, requiring 2 ~5-minute refuelings to make that thousand-mile trip in one long driving day (if I start with a full gas tank). The most common use I have for this vehicle is a 25-mile round trip commute in Northern VA to the water-production facility I work 12-hour rotating shifts at (Telecommute? Carpool? Mass-transit? HAH!). The point is, I *HAVE* to have that extra capacity, or I can't do the things I want and sometimes NEED to do. An electric car which can travel 100 miles at 50mph on a full charge, and requires a multi-hour charge at a non-wall-current receptacle - a vehicle which would satisfy my routine-local-travel needs - is utterly useless for me, and for literally EVERYONE I know.
Post by: HankB on March 26, 2008, 03:45:54 AM
And a lot of folks consider their financial projections to be dodgy, at best. Given the amount of money Cap Metro spends to run (largely) empty busses, I expect this scam to be thoroughly discredited within a few years at most, despite the best efforts of the spinmeisters.
If I had the resources, I'd "follow the money" and investigate how much ended up in the pockets of Cap Metro board members, their extended families, or campaign contributors.
Personally, I don't think people will choose to live in compact housing areas if they have a choice. I think suburbs and urban sprawl happens precely because people want their little piece of space.
It's called home ownership.
People like it.
Not everyone relishes the thought of being crowded into apartments, condos, or tenements in areas with high population density . . . all too often, these areas devolve into ghettos.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 26, 2008, 04:02:46 AM
Now that I agree with.
Telecommuting alone would eliminate a lot of fuel usage.
So would companies moving their offices closer to where their employees live. Does an office building have to be downtown?
Telecommuting alone would eliminate a lot of fuel usage.
So would companies moving their offices closer to where their employees live. Does an office building have to be downtown?
Unfortunately, telecommuting is good way to never advance far in your career.
Think "Out of sight, out of mind."
When it comes time to round off the balance sheet to please shareholders for the quarters, who is more likely to be rounded off? Someone whose name isn't even known around the office, because they telecommute all the time? Or someone who is there every day, leading every meeting, in person, personality known and liked in person?
HR managers know quite well that making someone who is well-liked leave with their box in front of everyone hurts morale, whereas if a telecommuter is rounded off, all that happens is that their email doesn't work anymore, responsibilities shift, and one or two people might notice in passing conversation a month or so later.
And PRT is still asinine. It'd be vandalized within a week, and continually so. From people taking a wiz in the pods, to slashing the seats, to setting fire to the pods, to punks dropping a busbar across the rails to shut down the ENTIRE SYSTEM at rush hour, it'd be abandoned ruins with lots of taxpayer dollars within a year.
Why do you think it's been a head-in-the-clouds concept for over half a century? Because people eventually realize that it won't work. Their slender tracks suddenly run into reality, and become massive things with drip pans, escape walkways, and handicapped access, and they realize it'd look like Chicago's L with tiny easily-vandalized pods on it. You are aware that laws require escape walkways along the entire run of any track now, right? The utopian dream becomes a nightmare of programming to ensure how all those switches will operate at peak periods without a complete jam or collisions, and the cost goes up, and up, and up, and up. Then there's the fact that sending a car off to a city center with a bomb in it would be an ideal guided missile for any terrorist to use.
Let it go. It failed. It's a dream, like flying cars. One that just won't work. Leave it in science fiction movies, and live in the real world.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 26, 2008, 05:27:00 AM
Post by: Firethorn on March 26, 2008, 05:47:50 AM
I really don't think I'll live to see the end of oil. If we do run out, I think it will be a longer way off than that. IMO, we will come up with technological alternatives first.
I didn't say the end of oil, I didn't say that we would run out.
I was trying to say that I expect to live to see the end of the majority of our travel being based off of petroleum fuel. 49% of travel could still be by oil products. Just not the 99.9% it is today.
Quote from: Manedwolf
And PRT is still asinine. It'd be vandalized within a week, and continually so. From people taking a wiz in the pods, to slashing the seats, to setting fire to the pods, to punks dropping a busbar across the rails to shut down the ENTIRE SYSTEM at rush hour, it'd be abandoned ruins with lots of taxpayer dollars within a year.
1. They'll be charged for it. Easy access to who did it via the card they used to enter. The NYC subway system seems to be able to exist despite the existence of punks.
2. Haven't heard of too many subway/railcar fires, do you have some reason to believe that punks will enjoy setting fire to the smaller cars more? Not to mention the only places they'll generally be immobile is in a video monitored station.
3. Again, why would this be a problem for PRT but not for all the other electric rail systems out there, such as NYC's electric rail? If anything, it'd be darwin award country to climb up to an elevated, ACTIVE track to try to short it out with a bus bar. The systems I've seen have sheltered bars as well, so we're not talking about just dropping a bar on it.
4. Even if they DO manage to short out the electricity(or other hazards take it out), the cars have enough juice in a battery to make it to the next station at least.
5. They're building one now, we'll see. It's not what I'd consider the best system, having a top speed of only 25mph, but it's at an airport, and they have plans that if the test install works, to spread it to cover hotels and other places.
Please, if you would, explain to me why PRT pods would be more of a target for vandalism than subways, busses, trains, etc...
It failed? It's never been truly tested. The closest was Morgantownbuilt back in the 70s, is still in operation today, but suffered from a number of problems because it was new technlogies and limited because of the technology of the day. It's also not considered PRT today, instead being closer to a AMT system. Despite this, it has a 98% uptime in 2007 and moves 16k people a day.
Because of the size of the cars, the tracks have to be heavier and therefore more expensive than what PRT proponents(like me) propose.
As for failing in the past, why should it fail now? It's not like it doesn't leverage one of the things that have advanced the most in the last 30 years - computer command and control technology, electric motors, and such.
edit: Erik,
One of the things I look at is a 98% utility rate - IE you rent a vehicle that can perform the extra tasks when you need it. Right now gasoline is still cheap enough for you to burn extra to have the additional capacity at your fingertips, but that may not be true in the future. If they can come out with a cheap enough commuter, you might be able to have the big truck and only drive it when it's needed, and actually save money by driving the cheap commuter when possible.
Besides, as I keep saying, it's all about the margins - you might not change, somebody else will. Get enough people over to more efficient options, you might be able to continue your lifestyle for a few years longer.
Post by: roo_ster on March 26, 2008, 06:28:03 AM
Quote
Please, if you would, explain to me why PRT pods would be more of a target for vandalism than subways, busses, trains, etc...
Witnesses.We need another public transport boondoggle like we need another hole ion the head.
Post by: grampster on March 26, 2008, 06:39:14 AM
Maybe 10 years ago they began assembling an elevated, temp controlled walkway in the resurging downtown. It was to connect every major building in the downtown. It was a terrific idea. They connected about a half dozen buildings and quit. They've been arguing about it since. The main argument is they want people on the streets to use the shops. Duh. With the walkway people could actually get to the shops dry, warm/cool and get a little exercise, especially since the walkway was also intended to connect folks to the remote parking areas.
I've long been a fan of elevated, electric or mag lev high speed trains that criss cross the country using the freeway r.o.w. Electricity from nuclear energy. Creates all kinds of jobs. Cheap fast transportation. Increase tourist trade. Reduces the need to drive cross country. Uhhh, people fly all over now. High speed trains could compete with air travel (reducing the crowded airways) as well as haul freight. The trucking industry could join with the elevated and short haul trucking would thrive as would rental car business for travelers.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 26, 2008, 06:58:11 AM
1. They'll be charged for it. Easy access to who did it via the card they used to enter. The NYC subway system seems to be able to exist despite the existence of punks.
Do you mean the stolen card, or do you mean like how ATM vestibules open for any card with a magstripe, no matter what it is or if it's expired, because that was the cheapest kind of lock? NYC subway has SUBWAY COPS. ON THE TRAINS. Have you ever been to NYC?
Quote
2. Haven't heard of too many subway/railcar fires, do you have some reason to believe that punks will enjoy setting fire to the smaller cars more? Not to mention the only places they'll generally be immobile is in a video monitored station.
Ooh, more video cameras and more people to monitor the cameras. Ca-ching, ca-ching, keep addding up the $$$$$$. Not to mention that a camera in the pod can be taken care of by a guy in a hoodie in sunglasses holding up a small spraypaint can. Do you really not understand how taggers and punks think?
Quote
3. Again, why would this be a problem for PRT but not for all the other electric rail systems out there, such as NYC's electric rail? If anything, it'd be darwin award country to climb up to an elevated, ACTIVE track to try to short it out with a bus bar. The systems I've seen have sheltered bars as well, so we're not talking about just dropping a bar on it.
Small tracks in a bad area, keep throwing bent drycleaning hangers and metal debris up on the track till you hear a bang, run away laughing and yelling. Or just toss bricks up there till the cars jam on things that wouldn't stop a full-sized train. You really haven't been to any inner cities, have you.
Quote
4. Even if they DO manage to short out the electricity(or other hazards take it out), the cars have enough juice in a battery to make it to the next station at least.
Here's where you fail completely. Such a system requires that the whole network be up to handle the switches that stop it from just being a traffic jam. Plus, if there's a jam or other malfunction, there goes the firefighters to get the people out, scare, ridership goes down, costs go up, more ca-ching, ca-ching, $$$$$$$.
Quote
5. They're building one now, we'll see. It's not what I'd consider the best system, having a top speed of only 25mph, but it's at an airport, and they have plans that if the test install works, to spread it to cover hotels and other places.
An airport is a controlled environment. Does not apply to the real world outside it. BTW, Vegas' monorail was a total failure. Nobody used it! They're pushing to make the company take the tracks down before they declare bankruptcy and are forced to leave them in place as abandoned eyesore ruins.
Quote
Please, if you would, explain to me why PRT pods would be more of a target for vandalism than subways, busses, trains, etc...
It failed? It's never been truly tested. The closest was Morgantownbuilt back in the 70s, is still in operation today, but suffered from a number of problems because it was new technlogies and limited because of the technology of the day. It's also not considered PRT today, instead being closer to a AMT system. Despite this, it has a 98% uptime in 2007 and moves 16k people a day.
It failed? It's never been truly tested. The closest was Morgantownbuilt back in the 70s, is still in operation today, but suffered from a number of problems because it was new technlogies and limited because of the technology of the day. It's also not considered PRT today, instead being closer to a AMT system. Despite this, it has a 98% uptime in 2007 and moves 16k people a day.
Read about Raytheon bailing the hell out of a project as the costs ballooned, then get back to me. Morgantown. Ha!
Quote
Because of the size of the cars, the tracks have to be heavier and therefore more expensive than what PRT proponents(like me) propose.
Your tracks are impossible. Did you entirely miss what I said about ALL tracks now requiring escape walkways along the entire length of the track run, as well as falling-object shields and drip pans, plus handicapped access? That is the LAW. You cannot get around that. There will be catwalks allowing a single file line of people on either side. That is how it is.
You just don't understand the reality, or the costs. It's why it's nothing but a failed concept.
Post by: Firethorn on March 26, 2008, 07:46:22 AM
Do you mean the stolen card, or do you mean like how ATM vestibules open for any card with a magstripe, no matter what it is or if it's expired, because that was the cheapest kind of lock? NYC subway has SUBWAY COPS. ON THE TRAINS. Have you ever been to NYC?
They stole the card, got the pin and the person hasn't reported it stolen yet? Probably rare. The proposals I've seen generally take a fare card. Some might interface with a credit card. One of the nicer proposals that way is that because you're ID'd, your frequent destinations can come up on a short list. Oh, and the subway cops can't be everywhere.
Quote
Ooh, more video cameras and more people to monitor the cameras. Ca-ching, ca-ching, keep addding up the $$$$$$. Not to mention that a camera in the pod can be taken care of by a guy in a hoodie in sunglasses holding up a small spraypaint can. Do you really not understand how taggers and punks think?
Cameras are cheap, and they won't be in the pod, they'll be in the stations. A pod outside a station will be traveling, most likely on an elevated rail. Not what I'd call an easy target. Worst case, yes, security guards/cops could be hired to patrol the stations on a random basis.
Quote
Small tracks in a bad area, keep throwing bent drycleaning hangers and metal debris up on the track till you hear a bang, run away laughing and yelling. Or just toss bricks up there till the cars jam on things that wouldn't stop a full-sized train. You really haven't been to any inner cities, have you.
Small tracks with covered rails, they can toss and laugh all day or until their arm gets tired. The same design that keeps water, snow, and ice from accumulating will let the brick fall down too. Dry Cleaning hangers? Given the amperage the track's likely to operate at, it probably won't survive contact long enough to throw the breakers.
Quote
Here's where you fail completely. Such a system requires that the whole network be up to handle the switches that stop it from just being a traffic jam. Plus, if there's a jam or other malfunction, there goes the firefighters to get the people out, scare, ridership goes down, costs go up, more ca-ching, ca-ching, $$$$$$$.
Here's where you've invested no thought. Each car is capable of independent action - the car itself worries about not hitting the one in front of it. It also knows how to get off at the next station if it loses signaling, just the same as if it loses power.
Quote
An airport is a controlled environment. Does not apply to the real world outside it. BTW, Vegas' monorail was a total failure. Nobody used it! They're pushing to make the company take the tracks down before they declare bankruptcy and are forced to leave them in place as abandoned eyesore ruins.
It's outside the wire, to remote parking lots for the trial install. They also have plans to run it out to local services such as hotels.
Quote
Read about Raytheon bailing the hell out of a project as the costs ballooned, then get back to me. Morgantown. Ha!
You're right. We need to stop using Airplanes because they sucked so much in the beginning. Oh wait, we kept using them and developed the technology to the point we can use them to transport tanks and such.
Morgantown was an experiment. I'm talking about learning from the mistakes made there, adjusting with new technologies and use the resources we have today that we didn't in 1975 - cheap and ample computing power, sophisticated yet inexpensive computers, etc...
Quote
Your tracks are impossible. Did you entirely miss what I said about ALL tracks now requiring escape walkways along the entire length of the track run, as well as falling-object shields and drip pans, plus handicapped access? That is the LAW. You cannot get around that. There will be catwalks allowing a single file line of people on either side. That is how it is.
Actually, I did miss that part. Sorry. Still, you're talking about LAW - California law at that. And the department responsible has the option of waiving those requirements. So it could be installed in Florida without having to meet California requirements. The federal part - handicapped access is already addressed. Ramps or even elevators in the station, fold up a seat for a wheelchair. Failing that, yes shields and pans could be put in, and yes, it would increase the costs. They would also be able to be lighter than such systems for heavier transport systems.
Quote
You just don't understand the reality, or the costs. It's why it's nothing but a failed concept.
undeveloped concept, not failed.
You keep assuming active sabotage and crazy rules that won't be modified if push comes to shove.
Post by: taurusowner on March 27, 2008, 11:02:12 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on March 28, 2008, 03:57:32 AM
Quote
You keep assuming active sabotage and crazy rules that won't be modified if push comes to shove.
Given that we are talking about not only Govt, but local City Govt, crazy rules and lack of adjustment is not a bad assumption. You seem to assume this will work, that all the problems will be worked out, and that it will be worth the billions it will take to make it operable. I don't think that is the best of assumptions. It won't be some great leader/manager put in charge of this, it will be some relative/crony of an elected official or Metro official. I think that is a good assumption no matter where it gets built.
Post by: lupinus on March 28, 2008, 10:56:57 AM
Two things will help us, and two things only. Fix the dollar. It's broke, it's constantly worth less and less. When you buy things internationally as we do a good bit of our oil the value of a dollar plays a huge role in the cost. If the dollar is worth half as much, the same item costs twice as much. Also, we have plenty of oil here, start making use of it. Tell the environmental weenies to sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride of they can move. This helps two ways. One, buying at home we aren't at the mercy of ye old sultan. Second, domestic prices have much less to do with how the dollar is doing overseas. If the value of a dollar internationally goes down overseas, it's still relatively the same here as it was yesterday.
A distant third is alternative energy. But that takes a long time to get going, get workable, and get using. It's just not the immediate solution, we need one that can hold us over in the mean time. One, because the alternative tech just isn't there yet and even once it's there we need to get infrastructure in place. Second, if tomorrow hydrogen cars were magically ready for market and the stations were available to fuel up, not everyone will have one tomorrow. They will be expensive at first. And even once they became more reasonable, it's still going to take years for Joe six pack to get one. How many people drive around in ten or twenty year old cars? Sure, some do it cause they love the car, most do it because it's what they could afford.
Post by: Firethorn on March 29, 2008, 04:17:08 PM
A distant third is alternative energy. But that takes a long time to get going, get workable, and get using. It's just not the immediate solution, we need one that can hold us over in the mean time. One, because the alternative tech just isn't there yet and even once it's there we need to get infrastructure in place. Second, if tomorrow hydrogen cars were magically ready for market and the stations were available to fuel up, not everyone will have one tomorrow. They will be expensive at first. And even once they became more reasonable, it's still going to take years for Joe six pack to get one. How many people drive around in ten or twenty year old cars? Sure, some do it cause they love the car, most do it because it's what they could afford.
With the increase in fuel costs; it may be cheaper in many cases to go with a newer vehicle that's more efficient; however I'm aware that many 'poor' are that way at least partially due to poor money management skills, thus often not able to get the credit for a better car, or even willing or able to make the calculations to say that that $1k car will end up costing less than the $500 one.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 29, 2008, 05:22:31 PM
Oil is a truly miraculous thing. For $3, a gallon of gasoline can move you, 3 or 4 other people, and maybe half a ton of cargo 20 or 30 miles, and it can do it quickly, easily, safely, and comfortably. That's a bargain. It would be bargain at $5/gal, or $10/gal. We might choose to use less of it at $10/gal, but it'd still be a bargain compared to walking (and carrying your own cargo) those 20 or 30 miles.
I say quit yer bitchin' and be grateful you live in modern America.
Post by: Firethorn on March 29, 2008, 06:32:55 PM
Am I the only person who understands that people buy oil because they want oil?
Yep. I don't buy oil because I like it, I buy oil because it's the most economic substance for me to get from point A to B in a reasonable amount of time on demand.
You offer me an alternative fuel that would work out cheaper, like electric(assuming magic batteries are invented for EVs) and I'd switch.
Quote
Oil is a truly miraculous thing. For $3, a gallon of gasoline can move you, 3 or 4 other people, and maybe half a ton of cargo 20 or 30 miles, and it can do it quickly, easily, safely, and comfortably. That's a bargain. It would be bargain at $5/gal, or $10/gal. We might choose to use less of it at $10/gal, but it'd still be a bargain compared to walking (and carrying your own cargo) those 20 or 30 miles.
I believe that the biggest cause of increases in oil prices lately have been the industrialization of China and India. This is not going to go away.
Part of the problem is that we've invested so much into our road systems, and ultimately they're not the most efficient. And their nature makes automatic driving orders of magnitude higher. Personally, I'd LOVE to be able to read a book or something while heading into work. Reduce the number of cars on the road, get people out of driving, and you'd reduce fatalities and injuries tremendously.
Oh, and I AM glad I'm an American.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 29, 2008, 06:57:30 PM
Am I the only person who understands that people buy oil because they want oil?
Yep. I don't buy oil because I like it, I buy oil because it's the most economic substance for me to get from point A to B in a reasonable amount of time on demand.
You offer me an alternative fuel that would work out cheaper, like electric(assuming magic batteries are invented for EVs) and I'd switch.
People buy oil because they want what only oil can provide.
Transportation means oil, plain and simple. There are no viable alternatives today. Maybe someday we'll come up with something better. When that happens people will switch. Trying to force people give up or reduce oil usage before then is an exercise in futility, if not stupidity.
We can debate the merits of mandating this or subsidizing that or taxing everything else. In the end all we're really debating is whether free people should be forced by government into doing something they don't want to do: giving up oil and with it the freedom to travel easily.
I'm not sure why anyone would be in favor of that.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 29, 2008, 08:09:22 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 29, 2008, 08:41:11 PM
For all six passengers.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 29, 2008, 10:53:59 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 30, 2008, 05:00:29 AM
The only light rail I've personally seen that has actually worked is Pictatinny.
That doesn't run over to Belleville, ILL does it? They were big on putting one from there to St. Loo when I lived down there.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 30, 2008, 05:26:28 AM
According to the web site, Metrolink does offer service between Belleville and St. Louis. I'd use the Metro more often, maybe, but I just don't go that direction much.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 30, 2008, 06:01:34 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 30, 2008, 06:39:50 AM
Really, though, I can't claim to know how much traffic they have, since I'm never there.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on March 30, 2008, 07:20:19 AM
I think Manedwolf was talking about one of these.
According to the web site, Metrolink does offer service between Belleville and St. Louis. I'd use the Metro more often, maybe, but I just don't go that direction much.
According to the web site, Metrolink does offer service between Belleville and St. Louis. I'd use the Metro more often, maybe, but I just don't go that direction much.
Oops! I hit the wrong quote button!
Post by: MechAg94 on March 30, 2008, 02:08:20 PM
Am I the only person who understands that people buy oil because they want oil?
Yep. I don't buy oil because I like it, I buy oil because it's the most economic substance for me to get from point A to B in a reasonable amount of time on demand.
You offer me an alternative fuel that would work out cheaper, like electric(assuming magic batteries are invented for EVs) and I'd switch.
People buy oil because they want the want what only oil can provide.
Transportation means oil, plain and simple. There are no viable alternatives today. Maybe someday we'll come up with something better. When that happens people will switch. Trying to force people give up or reduce oil usage before then is an exercise in futility, if not stupidity.
We can debate the merits of mandating this or subsidizing that or taxing everything else. In the end all we're really debating is whether free people should be forced by government into doing something they don't want to do: giving up oil and with it the freedom to travel easily.
I'm not sure why anyone would be in favor of that.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 30, 2008, 05:13:36 PM
Post by: charby on March 30, 2008, 06:02:52 PM
Like I said, we're not Japan. We're not gonna use mass transit. Get a Prius.
I would have buried that Prius on Saturday when I took a wrong turn into axle deep mud on my way to go fishing.
Post by: Boomhauer on March 30, 2008, 07:35:12 PM
Quote
Get a Prius
No.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 30, 2008, 07:53:40 PM
Want to tel me to quit smoking, wear a helmet when riding, things like that too?
Post by: roo_ster on March 31, 2008, 05:44:51 AM
"Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
----Milton Friedman
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 31, 2008, 05:58:55 AM
Post by: Firethorn on March 31, 2008, 06:51:14 AM
It's a joke. Lighten up an quit taking yourselves so seriously. The point is, if gas is too expensive, find ways to use less of it. Conservation, ya know...........
That's pretty much what I've been talking about; with a caveat that in city-type areas some form of mass transit CAN be a economical solution; especially if you do it well enough that you can get many of the cars in the daily traffic jams off the roads.
Consider that there are numerous people stuck in traffic for a hour each way to travel less than 30 miles in many cases. That's $6-7 in fuel today alone; not to mention the time, oil changes, insurance, etc...
Commute costs:
$6 Fuel (30 miles, each direction, at 30mpg)
$10 car payment* ($300 month/30 days in a month)
$2 insurance
$.50 maintenance ($30 oil change every ~2 months/3k miles)
That's $18.50 a day that you can save, plus or minus of course. If anything I might be a bit low on average. For example, what if you're driving a 15mpg truck or SUV? Heck, what if you have to pay for parking downtown?
Cars are expensive. Think of the savings we could have if we could come up with an alternative. It doesn't necessarily have to be cheap, given those expenses. Think about a downtown area. Parking garages cost millions. Street side parking ultimately costs big money as well, as it takes up at least one potential lane. One idea I'm having for a downtown area would be covered elevated slideways between buildings - preferably even within the buildings so you can keep your average speed up. You'd park outside of the downtown area and walk to your final destination - avoiding the traffic downtown. Costs could be mostly covered by eliminating the need for one or more parking garages.
This is part of the reason for some car sharing programs as well - faster, more convienent methods to essentially 'rent' a car on demand. If you can save $20/day by NOT having a car, you can afford to spend $30 once a week or so when having one would be sufficiently convienent.
*Yes, this is not 100% necessary, but note that I'm keeping the price down too. Also potentially not refundable if the person still needs a vehicle no matter what. Same with insurance.
Post by: HankB on March 31, 2008, 07:20:49 AM
Quote
Cars are expensive.
They'd be less expensive if they weren't taxed to fund public transit, schools, or other politicians' pet projects.They'd be less expensive if the EPA weren't meddling with things like "regionally formlated" gasoline mixtures.
They'd be less expensive if the government weren't requiring things like emission checks.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed drilling in ANWR and other places.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed processing of coal into gasoline.
Post by: Boomhauer on March 31, 2008, 07:38:46 AM
Post by: Firethorn on March 31, 2008, 07:43:41 AM
Quote
Cars are expensive.
They'd be less expensive if they weren't taxed to fund public transit, schools, or other politicians' pet projects.How does that work out with the massive subsidizations for roads, in many cases? In many areas gas tax doesn't pay for it all. Not even adding in car registration fees covers the expenses.
Quote
They'd be less expensive if the EPA weren't meddling with things like "regionally formlated" gasoline mixtures.
Agreed - though generally speaking the EPA isn't mandating those, it's the individual cities trying to meet the EPA guidelines. I like clean air, and pollution is a problem that tends to crop up when you stick millions of automobiles in one area. Get rid of a bunch, especially the older more polluting ones and you might not need botique gas.
Quote
They'd be less expensive if the government weren't requiring things like emission checks.
I like breathing clean air, thank you.
Quote
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed drilling in ANWR and other places.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed processing of coal into gasoline.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed processing of coal into gasoline.
Agreed, though that'd only save some of the $6. Especially coal gassification, extraction of oil from oil shales/sands. These processes cost more than just pumping crude, after all.
In any case, please keep in mind that I consider a good alternate transportation measure to have to beat cars on at least the majority of points, and be competitive on others -
Cost
Convienence
Speed/Transit time to destination
Capacity
Consider, while slideways wouldn't be the fastest transporation out there, done right you could take a more or less direct route at around 6-10 mph. If the streets outside are 25mph with redlights at every intersection and heavy traffic, it could easily be faster to take the slideway. Especially if parking is difficult to come by.
Heck, I think that purely interior electric trainways might be neat as well.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 31, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
I really want to see who told them that we have an unlimited supply of liquified fossil fuel, ripe for the plundering.
IOW, our petroleum-based economy is merely a temporary thing, folks.
You might be lucky and live a full lifespan, then die, before the cost of said petroleum forces alternatives.
Then again, you might not.
Post by: roo_ster on March 31, 2008, 08:32:04 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 31, 2008, 04:09:23 PM
Quote
Cars are expensive.
They'd be less expensive if they weren't taxed to fund public transit, schools, or other politicians' pet projects.They'd be less expensive if the EPA weren't meddling with things like "regionally formlated" gasoline mixtures.
They'd be less expensive if the government weren't requiring things like emission checks.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed drilling in ANWR and other places.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed processing of coal into gasoline.
Apparently, you'd rather live in China. I hear there are good jobs available there, paying up to $1.20 a day.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 01, 2008, 07:05:21 AM
My local prices in NH for 87 oct:
Mobil: $3.06
Irving: $3.05
Hess: $3.05
7-11: $3.05
Gee, maybe it's because we don't have all the asinine greenie laws and taxes here?
Post by: charby on April 01, 2008, 07:10:28 AM
Post by: HankB on April 01, 2008, 08:04:33 AM
Quote
Cars are expensive.
They'd be less expensive if they weren't taxed to fund public transit, schools, or other politicians' pet projects.They'd be less expensive if the EPA weren't meddling with things like "regionally formlated" gasoline mixtures.
They'd be less expensive if the government weren't requiring things like emission checks.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed drilling in ANWR and other places.
They'd be less expensive if the government allowed processing of coal into gasoline.
Apparently, you'd rather live in China. I hear there are good jobs available there, paying up to $1.20 a day.
Post by: coppertales on April 01, 2008, 08:49:59 AM
Post by: TF_FH on April 01, 2008, 12:07:38 PM
Gotta pay for all those snow plows and road salt somehow. But, global warming should take care of that problem.......chris3
And in turn it will reduce carbon emmissons from the plows and the trucks to ship the salt! So that means global warming is good right?
But if we don't run them, the earth will turn into an ice cube from us not emitting enough carbon! OH NO! THE END IS NEAR!!!
Post by: taurusowner on April 01, 2008, 09:53:09 PM