Oprah is an enemy

As you may have heard, Oprah Winfrey is considering doing a show on the topic of making it illegal for cyclists to ride on city streets. Oprah’s website has posted information about this under "topics we're working on for upcoming shows". Please be aware that the League of American Bicyclists has been in contact with Oprah’s producers to encourage them to present the viewpoints of cyclists in the event this show goes ahead. We will keep you posted.


Source (http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/aaoprah.htm)

Oh yes, both use land and fuel incredibly more efficiently than a highway system for private cars. Which is better for conserving nature: a runway in Chicago and another one in Tampa; or a runway from Chicago to Tampa?

Both items are already built so it makes little difference. The roads are also recycable.

Anyway, the real issue is not conserving nature, it is changing things enough for the auto culture to continue. I hate cars as much as anyone here, I hate the fact that when I step out my door there is a wall of cars in every direction blocking my path. But it is going to continue no matter what I think.

Or were you asking me if they're already there? I can take a cab to the airport or train station or they both have parking lots if I want to drive, and I can rent a car (if I really need to) when I arrive at my destination. It's the whole 1000 km of highway driving in between that I would like to dispense with.

The point is that a plane ride is not restfull. You have to drive to the airport, wait for the plane, hope your connecting flight is not late, take another ride, then drive to the final destination.

With the autocar setup you could just put a cot in the car(no worries about safty or seatbelts), get in and wake up where you need to be. Heck, you could be in a different city every day if you wanted with no awake time spent in transit. Kind of a waste to do that for a vacation as there is little point in eating at a different McDonalds every day, but it would be great for business trips.

This is going to allow a great many new things to happen. Public transport is going to reach new levels. Living car free will be much less of a pain in the butt. Instead of bus routes you just punch where you are and where you need to go in your cell phone. The linked group of busses could then change routes and speeds to allow point to point travel. Taxis will no longer need drivers and will be able to get around much faster, reducing rates(no to mention that insurence will cost next to nothing as the crash rate will be only a few % of what it is now). Heck, you could even turn your car loose as a taxi when you are at work. Right now every bit of economic growth requires more cars. When this thing gets rolling we can have growth while reducing the total number of cars.

Quite true, but there is probably less emissions per mile this way, and the emissions are away from the cities, which helps the local air pollution problem somewhat.

In terms of soot and other highly nasty stuff, that's true, but in terms of carbon dioxide it may not be true. Battery powered vehiclas are quite good from the environmental perspective and not as good from the perspective of reducing total energy consumption.

Battery powered cars are plagued by the fact that every time you charge a battery, some of the electricity does nothing but heat up the battery, and every time you use the battery, some of the electricity does nothing but heat up the battery.

Some day, if use of huge amounts of energy becomes ridiculously expensive (corresponding with growing demand in india and china)

we may resort to only using 3000 pound vehicles when we have 3000 pounds of cargo to move, but also resort to running those vehicles off of overhead wires,

which don't present nearly as much of an efficiency problem as batteries. (on the other hand, at night, lots of electricity goes totally unused because most power plants can't be shut off and turned on in 24 hours. good for battery vehicles, less good for overhead-wire vehicles.)

Battery powered cars are plagued by the fact that every time you charge a battery, some of the electricity does nothing but heat up the battery, and every time you use the battery, some of the electricity does nothing but heat up the battery.

Gas cars are even worse. Something like 50% of the energy created is lost as heat. But the big power plants are even worse. That's why the new big thing is piping the excess heat to nearby buildings.

(on the other hand, at night, lots of electricity goes totally unused because most power plants can't be shut off and turned on in 24 hours. good for battery vehicles, less good for overhead-wire vehicles.)

My idea is to make giant batteries. Pump all the excess juice into a number of large batteries, when they are full turn off some of the powerplants untill the batteries are drained, then repeat.

The point is that a plane ride is not restfull. You have to drive to the airport, wait for the plane, hope your connecting flight is not late, take another ride, then drive to the final destination.

With the autocar setup you could just put a cot in the car(no worries about safty or seatbelts), get in and wake up where you need to be. Heck, you could be in a different city every day if you wanted with no awake time spent in transit. Kind of a waste to do that for a vacation as there is little point in eating at a different McDonalds every day, but it would be great for business trips.

This is going to allow a great many new things to happen. Public transport is going to reach new levels. Living car free will be much less of a pain in the butt. Instead of bus routes you just punch where you are and where you need to go in your cell phone. The linked group of busses could then change routes and speeds to allow point to point travel. Taxis will no longer need drivers and will be able to get around much faster, reducing rates(no to mention that insurence will cost next to nothing as the crash rate will be only a few % of what it is now). Heck, you could even turn your car loose as a taxi when you are at work. Right now every bit of economic growth requires more cars. When this thing gets rolling we can have growth while reducing the total number of cars.


The plane is much more restful, because you get to LA in a few hours and can sleep in a hotel, rather than sleeping in your car en route for 2 days. Or, if you take the train, you can walk around and chat to the German tourists (who are found on all North American trains). As for all your autocar predictions, I think they will turn out to be like the long-promised flying car.
Ri

Anyway, the real issue is not conserving nature, it is changing things enough for the auto culture to continue. I hate cars as much as anyone here, I hate the fact that when I step out my door there is a wall of cars in every direction blocking my path. But it is going to continue no matter what I think.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates the jugernaute of consumption of our society. Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers. There needs to be an public outcry, not a mumbling in the pews of corporate capitalism. If people convince themselves that they can't do anything but lessen the badness than that's all that's going to happen. We need to get rid of this weak half-assed mentality and get something done.

As for all your autocar predictions, I think they will turn out to be like the long-promised flying car.
Ri

Not at all, they were making thses things 10 years ago, it's just that they were not safe enough to use en Mass. They can even now make unmammed cars that can cross the mojavi(sp) desert, something they couldn't even start to do last year.

Like it or not, you will be dealing with the auto culture till the day you die.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates the jugernaute of consumption of our society. Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers. There needs to be an public outcry, not a mumbling in the pews of corporate capitalism. If people convince themselves that they can't do anything but lessen the badness than that's all that's going to happen. We need to get rid of this weak half-assed mentality and get something done.


Sounds like to much trouble to me.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates the jugernaute of consumption of our society. Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers. There needs to be an public outcry, not a mumbling in the pews of corporate capitalism. If people convince themselves that they can't do anything but lessen the badness than that's all that's going to happen. We need to get rid of this weak half-assed mentality and get something done.

Applause!

I'm not afraid to say, "Shame on you!" to people who drive their cars to work on smog-alert days; I'm not too lazy to show up to city consultations and demand responsible options; and I'm not too hypocritical to audit our household's environmental footprint once or twice a year. I'm not the feel-good, warm-fuzzy environmentalist type, nor the preachy type really. I'm just blunt about telling people when their decisions hurt my health and well-being (along with everyone else on the planet).

In olden times public humiliation was a common punishment. It still works today.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates the jugernaute of consumption of our society. Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers. There needs to be an public outcry, not a mumbling in the pews of corporate capitalism. If people convince themselves that they can't do anything but lessen the badness than that's all that's going to happen. We need to get rid of this weak half-assed mentality and get something done.
Amen. I am sick of the voices (timid whispers) of those who preach "moderation" when confronting car "culture." It is an anti-culture, and it is destroying our society and our planet. Asking for little will get us little.

("[M]umbling in the pews of corporate capitalism". . . Priceless! :))

My idea is to make giant batteries. Pump all the excess juice into a number of large batteries, when they are full turn off some of the powerplants untill the batteries are drained, then repeat.

A lot of people have thought of that idea.

I think power companies spend less on building and operating bigger power plants than they would on buying batteries, so they don't buy the batteries.

It is NOT a true environmental position at all, it is merely a way for rich liberals to feel better about their wasteful lifestyles.

So then, must we assume that rich conservatives are all paragons of environmental virtue then?

Yeah, right. The Republicans and the Democrats should merge.

Both items are already built so it makes little difference. The roads are also recycable.

Anyway, the real issue is not conserving nature, it is changing things enough for the auto culture to continue. I hate cars as much as anyone here, I hate the fact that when I step out my door there is a wall of cars in every direction blocking my path. But it is going to continue no matter what I think.
Yes, it will continue no matter what you think. It's what you do that can change things.

These cynical and defeatist attitudes are very distressing.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that perpetuates the jugernaute of consumption of our society. Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers. There needs to be an public outcry, not a mumbling in the pews of corporate capitalism. If people convince themselves that they can't do anything but lessen the badness than that's all that's going to happen. We need to get rid of this weak half-assed mentality and get something done.

We can have a HUGE, ENORMOUS public outcry. We can increase our numbers by a factor of 10. We can switch from a half-assed to a full-assed mentality. And car culture will STILL continue.

Yes, we can make a difference. But we cannot completely radically change everything, at least not overnight. Until we figure that out we're just banging our heads against the wall while people laugh at us from their cars.

Yes, it will continue no matter what you think. It's what you do that can change things.

These cynical and defeatist attitudes are very distressing.

Cynical, maybe, defeatist no. Realistic yes. To be unrealistic is to waste our resources and sometimes actually hurt our cause. Most people are realistic, and they aren't going to listen to or join someone who isn't.

Cynical, maybe, defeatist no. Realistic yes. To be unrealistic is to waste our resources and sometimes actually hurt our cause. Most people are realistic, and they aren't going to listen to or join someone who isn't.
It is unrealistic to believe that things won't change. It is in the nature of all things to change. How they change is the issue.

And actually, the car culture isn't even a thing. It's the collective behavior of millions of individual people. It will change one individual at a time. When enough individuals change, there is a snowballing effect (a critical mass :)) and then the society changes.

If I don't like the car culture and the way things are going, why wouldn't I try to change it? Besides working for change, what other course makes any sense? How realistic is it to sit by and let things continue to deteriorate? Why is it realistic to wait until the oil is gone before we begin planning some alternatives? How realistic is it to let the atmosphere and oceans continue warming? How realistic to let the big corporations get richer as they continue bleeding normal people like us?

Change doesn't have to mean radical political action only. The first level of change is individual change, or accepting responsibility for your own actions as they affect your own happiness. Riding your bike more and driving less is an example of this level. The second level is local change, speaking and working with your friends and neighbors to improve your community. An example would be helping a co-worker to try bike commuting, or advocating for better night and weekend bus service. It's easy and fun to work at one of these levels, and the impact will be great.

Yes, it will continue no matter what you think. It's what you do that can change things.

These cynical and defeatist attitudes are very distressing.

Someone else said;

>>>>>Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers.<<<<<<<

I am giving you the tough answer you don't want to hear so you are all rejecting it. Funny how that works.

I don't think you guys understand just how valuable out transportation infrastructure is. The whole point of broadband is an information "freeway" that will mimic the results of the car freeway(massive economic growth).

If we every get to the point where we are forced to create a different system it will be to late, the US will go up in flames. Bikes are not going to save us.

Someone else said;

>>>>>Nobody want's to ask difficult questions and share tough answers.<<<<<<<

I am giving you the tough answer you don't want to hear so you are all rejecting it. Funny how that works.

I don't think you guys understand just how valuable out transportation infrastructure is. The whole point of broadband is an information "freeway" that will mimic the results of the car freeway(massive economic growth).

If we every get to the point where we are forced to create a different system it will be to late, the US will go up in flames. Bikes are not going to save us.
Well I guess we all better just slit our wrists or something.

Well I guess we all better just slit our wrists or something.

You can't wait untill the day before you need a place to live before you start saving money to build a new home. If you didn't think about it ten or fifteen years ago it is a bit late at that point.

It is not doom and gloom(except for car haters). The oil only has to last long enough for hydrogen(coal) to kick in. We have plenty of coal and that has to last untill we can start using Fusion to create hydrogen.

Why is it realistic to wait until the oil is gone before we begin planning some alternatives?

This is the strawman everyone uses. The stuff I have been going on and on about has been in the works since the late 60s/early 70s. I don't know about anyone else but I knew about this in the 70s and I was only 8. This is not a joke, this is not another "jetpack", this is something that can work.

I don't know why you think that car's (albeit better ones) are the only and best solution to, well car's. We don't need some space age technology that will guide every car as you describe. Basically all we will be left with is a road train except with all the inherent ineficiencies of car's. The solution to the problem is available now metro transit is really the best option for creating a positive human oriented city where people can walk the streets (streets that are human scaled) without fear of getting run over, or the bother of the stench or noise (I'd like to see your tech solve the noise, hunderds of wheels hammering the pavment aint quiet and it ain't easy to solve).
See car's will ALLWAYS consume more energy than forms of tranist such as rail, consider the amount of energy to haul one person around in a car. Take rolling resistance. Rubber will allways have more rolling resistance than a steel wheel on a steel track. And then consider that you have 4 wheels for every one person being transported. Or one wheel per person if you are car pooling. Consider the friction (hence ineffieciency) caused by this fact alone. Compare that to a metro train. Usually has 4 wheels per car and each car can seat lots of people. As far as rolling resistance per passenger trains win by TKO, no question. Also when you consider the air risistance of car's or trains, trains will always win, why. Because when you conisder the number of people being moved and the frontal cross-section of the vehicle trains are the obvious winner. For the number of people they move they present a fraction of the surface that car's do. No amount of technology will solve this. Computer guided drafting as you describe may help slightly. But it will never match a train.

Then let's consider space inside cities. After all any transportation system should serve people rather than us serving it. Consider that over 50% of available space in urban area's is devoted to automobility. A SINGLE lane of traffic can carry only 2000 car's an hour under IDEAL circumstances (a rail line can move up to 20 times as many people over the same amount of land BEFORE any allowence is made for parking). Cities were much nicer places before the advent of cars. Now I'm not saying that we should go back to things the way they were. But we should really consider the best options for transport in cities instead of just becoming amazed by technology. I love technology, but no amount of technology will solve a problem if the solution is inherently flawed. We need to think about what's best for people and for the environment and create a future around this vision. We need to start creating human scale, walkable cities again, but we need to improve on the walkable cities of old with good transportation such as quality metro transit. Available transport will always define the shape of human settelments. I think it's time we started designing our cities around better, more efficient modes of transportation.

Check out this book car free cities (http://www.carfree.com/) for more idea's. There is a fair bit of info on the web page. But the book is simply stagaring. One of my favorites.

I don't know why you think that car's (albeit better ones) are the only and best solution to, well car's.

Because cars are what we have now, we can't just change to something else at the drop of a hat even if people were willing. Even with this system it will take a good 20 years to make a change over after 40 years of research. I don't know how long it took to go from trains to trucks for shipping but we are many times larger than that now.

Because cars are what we have now, we can't just change to something else at the drop of a hat even if people were willing. Even with this system it will take a good 20 years to make a change over after 40 years of research. I don't know how long it took to go from trains to trucks for shipping but we are many times larger than that now.
You're right that there are currently no substitutes for private motorized vehicles ready for mass use. But the replacements already exist: trains, busses, subways, light rail, people movers, and of course bicycles. I don't expect that we need to worry too much about changing from trucks to trains right now. Trucks only are about 25 % of highway traffic, and trains are already used widely in almost every country for freight.

The precedents from history are interesting. The first autos (and trucks) were mass produced in about 1903. By 1920--a little over 15 years--the bramd new technology had practically replaced horses and bicycles. Actually, it was trains, streetcars and trolleys that were the first widespread motorized vehicles for personal transport. They were largely replaced by private automobiles by the end of the the 1950s.

So, you're saying that it will take 60 years to replace autos with technologies that already exist. Yet we went from horses, trains and bikes to cars and trucks (brand new technology) in only 15 to 50 years. Makes your idea seem a little too conservative, don't you think? Of course a lot depends on what people want to do. That's where we as individuals can make the difference.

You're right that there are currently no substitutes for private motorized vehicles ready for mass use. But the replacements already exist: trains, busses, subways, light rail, people movers, and of course bicycles. I don't expect that we need to worry too much about changing from trucks to trains right now. Trucks only are about 25 % of highway traffic, and trains are already used widely in almost every country for freight.

But one truck does as much damage to the roads as 3000 cars do, I think the number is. They also get less than 10 mpg. The railroads are already gone now, except for the few that are now bike trails. The replacement IDEA may exist, but it would take decades to plan everything out and rebuild massive amounts of infrastructure. More to the point, it is not going to happen, we have a greater chance of getting Al Sharpton as our next President.

So, you're saying that it will take 60 years to replace autos with technologies that already exist. Yet we went from horses, trains and bikes to cars and trucks (brand new technology) in only 15 to 50 years. Makes your idea seem a little too conservative, don't you think? Of course a lot depends on what people want to do. That's where we as individuals can make the difference.

We are already almost 40 years into the process and there is a big difference between cars of the past and what is coming. This nation was built on inefficiency. Things were inefficient because that made them simple. Simple to maintain and simple to fix. It took all this time to create the infrastructure to maintain the more complex efficient stuff. After all this time it took to get to this point you think the Powers That Be are going to flush it all away right before the big payoff????

Why perpetuate an ineffecient and downright wastefull system just because it's there. Rail costs much less to build than highway. Also I've read proposals of installing interurban light rail on existing freeways. The roadway would make a great track bed for even cheaper instalation. Considering how much it will cost to install this massive high tech system of car guidence rail is still a much cheaper alternative. And what about malfunctions in the system? What about wildlife? What about the raging obesity epedemic? It not just for the enviroment's sake we need to abolish car's. Convenience is killing us softly.

You make the point that rail is already gone. So re-build it. Compared to the cost of building new freeways and trucks rail is a drop in the pond and the saving are tremendouse.

XYZ exactly what "big pay off" are you talking about. Our cities will still be over-run by ugly car's. You said previously that you hate car's as much as anyone else, so why are you fighting so hard for a future over-run by them?

The fact is that we are still extremly far from discovering and "environmentally friendly car" if such a beast actually exists (which I highly doubt) because the energy to push the car around has to come from somewhere and considering how much energy it will take to push around even more cars well, harvesting that much energy is going to have some negative consequences. Our society has proved that this model of urban design does not work. We need to go back to the drawing board. Draft urban planning bylaws which will push cities into a car-free design. Everything I'm saying is practical and can be started TODAY. It's not nesecarily the easiest option (going against the status qou never is) but it's the best thing we've got, it's practical and all the technology to make it happen EXISTS AND IS PROVEN. Your solution depends on some magic bulet that will solve everything (or so you seem to claim). Your solution is not proven and doesn't even fully exist.
I'm not a jerk, just a pragmatist.

But one truck does as much damage to the roads as 3000 cars do, I think the number is. They also get less than 10 mpg. The railroads are already gone now, except for the few that are now bike trails. The replacement IDEA may exist, but it would take decades to plan everything out and rebuild massive amounts of infrastructure.

Yes, large transport trucks add far more wear and tear to highways than cars, but a highway dedicated to trucks would be a lot cheaper to maintain than a wider highway for cars and trucks. As well, trucks and rail are easily integrated. In Europe the laws in some countries state that long distance haulage must be by rail. So if a goods are going to be shipped across country in the USA or Canada, they could be loaded into a container truck and driven to the rail depot, carried by rail, then picked up by a container truck at the far end. There are still enough rail lines for that, and those laws are overdue here.

For those who are interested, here is a comparison of rail and truck freight (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts003_05/html/bts003_05.html). Railroads still carry a significant proportion of our cargo. In fact, by one measure (ton-miles), the amount was about equivalent.

Quite often, I have to wait for a train carrying the new Cadillacs that are assembled near my house. One time I counted 240 railroad cars. Each car contained 14 shiny Cadillacs. Does that tell you anything about the relative efficiency of trains and autos? (And there I am, sitting on my little bike :))

For those who are interested, here is acomparison of rail and truck freight (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts003_05/html/bts003_05.html). Railroads still carry a significant proportion of our cargo. In fact, by one measure (ton-miles), the amount was about equivalent.
Yes, the headline was quite misleading. Trucks make more trips but many are short trips. When you consider weight and miles, trains carry as much as trucks.

Yes, the headline was quite misleading. Trucks make more trips but many are short trips. When you consider weight and miles, trains carry as much as trucks.
Yes, and many times the same cargo is carried by one train, but by two trucks--one truck takes it to the train, and another takes it away at the destination.

Roody,

I agree with everything you said. I just don't think you should expect your efforts to bear fruit overnight. That's all.

Roody,

I agree with everything you said. I just don't think you should expect your efforts to bear fruit overnight. That's all.
Since I first realized the destructive nature of autos about 35 years ago, I don't expect overnight fruiting either. But continuing to stick our heads up our butts will not speed things along. And perpetuating the nonsense that there is no viable alternative to cars and trucks won't help either.

To Merton, about Monsanto, this isn't directly petroevil, but it's related.


Monsanto sells hybrid seeds for food crops. These hybrids are engineered to demand high loads of roundup and other artificial pesticides/fertilizers to even bear a crop.


Not a problem if you buy both seeds and chemicals.

Problem: the hybrids monsanto are engineering are pernicious, in that they will invade and spread throughout a region by air transport, etc.

so that an entire agricultural crop in a region can be displaced by Monsanto's hybrids that require heave petrochemical loads. monsanto's not trying to feed the poor more effectively, they are engineering pernicious forms of monoculture agriculture that will depend on chemicals to bear crops.

In Canada, for instance, they have taken farmers to court for growing roundup resistant strains of wheat, that got in their fields by air transport. They are attempting to sieze farmers land there. In african agriculture, monsanto's program is even more devious. Replacing native forms of agriculture with non native monoculture that requires a heavy load of poison to grow.


I hope that may clarify a little...

To Merton, about Monsanto, this isn't directly petroevil, but it's related.
Monsanto sells hybrid seeds for food crops. These hybrids are engineered to demand high loads of roundup and other artificial pesticides/fertilizers to even bear a crop.
I don't think they need the Roundup, but they can withstand doses that kill other plants, so farmers are encuraged to use more roundup, a toxin that kills other plants. Thus Monsanto can sell the seeds and lots of Roundup.

why are you fighting so hard for a future over-run by them?

I am not fighting for anything, I am just telling you the way it is. It looks like there are two things here. The Economy and the Enviroment. Only going by the latter mass transit is the way to go. Going by the former then cars are going to be the big thing. Guess what is going to win? Cars are just better(from the economic point) because you can do what you want when you want. The problem is that the roads are to full, what I have described(poorly) is going to change that. The big payoff is having a car system that is many times as efficient as it is today, the same systems that let this happen are going to allow mass transit to reach new levels. It's win/win.

Take a look at this weeks Newsweek. They go into a few things that are in the works. A handfull of new stuff that will double MPG, even before adaptive cruise control.

Well, here's the first part of the artical;
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Newsweek/2005/11/21/1086638
If you are interested just look at the local news stand if you don't want to pay.

This stuff is going mainstream, you are going to see more and more about efficenty.

It took car manufacturers 60 years after they were invented to put PCV blowbacks on cars. This 5 dollar part reduces emmisions and increases fuel economy. I wouldn't just leave it to the car manufacturers to provide a new paridigm of automoble transport - they don't care if you're caught in traffic, they just want you to keep buying the damn things!

It took car manufacturers 60 years after they were invented to put PCV blowbacks on cars. This 5 dollar part reduces emmisions and increases fuel economy. I wouldn't just leave it to the car manufacturers to provide a new paridigm of automoble transport - they don't care if you're caught in traffic, they just want you to keep buying the damn things!

If the world becomes one big mass of cars not moving they will not be able to sell anything. They have an interest is this, but the goverment forced the issue upon them almost 40 years ago. This is not a short term plan. Laugh all you want about what the CEO of the day is doing, this goes far beyond that.

The average Joe thinks: 1)Cyclists are a nuisance (or target). 2)The energy crisis does not exist. 3)Global warmimg is bunk. 4)We have unlimited material resources. Under the circumstances, arguing about whether hybrids represent a step forward or back seems beside the point.

THOR29 get real! No difference in hybrid mileage on highway trips. We all know the mpg estimates are high but NOTHING in the normal car category can get the 50'ish mpg from the Prius on the highway. And the new Civic hybrid gets the same 50/50 city & highway. Somehow they have corrected the gap that gave lower highway mileage.

Accept that you live on a planet with internal combustion engines. If one must have a car why not get one that has the cleanest possible rating for such an engine. Partial zero emissions is awesome. Thats pretty darn good in a world of big V8 FUV's.

THOR29 get real! No difference in hybrid mileage on highway trips. We all know the mpg estimates are high but NOTHING in the normal car category can get the 50'ish mpg from the Prius on the highway. And the new Civic hybrid gets the same 50/50 city & highway. Somehow they have corrected the gap that gave lower highway mileage.

Accept that you live on a planet with internal combustion engines. If one must have a car why not get one that has the cleanest possible rating for such an engine. Partial zero emissions is awesome. Thats pretty darn good in a world of big V8 FUV's.

Most of the time on the highway, the hybrid is simply running on it's gasoline engine, so the good hwy mileage is NOT because it's a hybrid, it's because it's a light, small, aerodynamic car. (In contrast the good city mileage is because of reusing energy recovered from braking.) But if hybrids burn less gas than conventional cars, and so produce less greenhouse gases, disturbingly, some may still produce as much smog or pollutants as normal cars inspite of that (see here (http://http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/select.htm), check out the Honda Insight, for example). So the hybrids ain't the wonder cars they're cracked up to be, and some of the gains are because the first ones are simply smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars. Sadly, Detroit is going to be hyping up the benefits of hybrid engines and getting people to naively buy hybrid SUVs, negating the benefits that mighy have occured with small efficient designs.

And "zero" emissions is a misnomer. The true name for electric and hydrogen cars is "displaced emission" vehicles, since the fossil fuels burned to create the electricity or hydrogen create emissions some distance from your car.

Where are the 50 MPG cars they sold us in the 1980'S ? Yugo, Geo metro, Honda CVCC , accord super sipper,


fuel economy and even the consumer's expectations of what 'good fuel economy' is; nowadays, car makers talk about 29mpg CAFE standards like its the holy grail.

and no offense, XYZ, but you're caught up in the auto industry a little too much, buddy.

Americans don't have to drive cars so damn much, it isn't 'collision avoidance radar' that's going to provide a paradigm shift in automobile culture.

and no offense, XYZ, but you're caught up in the auto industry a little too much, buddy.

Americans don't have to drive cars so damn much, it isn't 'collision avoidance radar' that's going to provide a paradigm shift in automobile culture.

I am not "caught up" in anything. I had nothing to do with the development of these systems. But they are the future of driving. They are going to make everything work better so that when the age of coal fueled cars comes along it will take less infrastructure to run things.

Just a funny thing I found.http://technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=325

http://www.accelerationwatch.com/articles/undergroundhighwaysystems.html

When the Chinese become almost as wealthy as Europeans (or just as wealthy maybe) and India goes that direction as well, no amount of using gas-electric hybrids is going to make it possible for average consumers to afford their own cars.

Remember that today's Chinese wealth comes mostly from selling goods to the USA and, to a lesser degree Europe. By the time enough USA money goes to China to make the Chinese 'almost as wealthy as Europeans', the USA economy will be so depressed most people won't be able to afford to drive automobiles; at least not nearly like they do today. The Chinese outnumber Americans and Europeans four to one. It is going to take a lot of USA dollars (and European Euro) to bring the Chinese standard of living up to the point that the average Chinese is as wealthy as your average European.

It isn't likely to become a reality because China's economic growth is dependant on exports. If China sucks too much money out of the host nations that support her exports, the hosts will become anemic and China’s economy will top out.

For those who are interested, here is a comparison of rail and truck freight (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts003_05/html/bts003_05.html). Railroads still carry a significant proportion of our cargo. In fact, by one measure (ton-miles), the amount was about equivalent.

Quite often, I have to wait for a train carrying the new Cadillacs that are assembled near my house. One time I counted 240 railroad cars. Each car contained 14 shiny Cadillacs. Does that tell you anything about the relative efficiency of trains and autos? (And there I am, sitting on my little bike :))

Thanks for posting that comparison from the Department of Transportation, Roody. One of the reasons that so much goes by truck is because USA rail is NOT that cost effective.

If you are in the midwest and want to ship west AND you have a lot of freight (114,000 lbs) and you are going to one destination, like a port, then rail might make sense. OH, but remember that rail cars are very unpredictable so you won't know exactly when your rail car is going to arrive for you to load. it can be anywhere within a two or three week window. This means you can't guarantee the arrival either. So, if you are willing to contend with unpredictable rail delivery and have a lot to ship and you don't mind your product being damaged (and often stolen - called 'shrink'), then you can save a little money by going rail.

Now, if you are going EAST, it is a different story. For some crazy damned reason, rail costs going east are not as cost effective as going west. This was explained to me that the rails going east are owned by several different corporations and each one wants a fee as the cars pass over it. I don't know for sure. I only know that rail going east is expensive and it is a hassle. So a lot of goods go by truck.

I like the idea of rail too. I have seen rail used effectively all around the world. In the USA, however, that is NOT the case. Beyond the equipment being shabby and in poor condition, the whole USA rail system is a mess and simply is not practical for most producers and for most goods.

Remember that today's Chinese wealth comes mostly from selling goods to the USA and, to a lesser degree Europe. By the time enough USA money goes to China to make the Chinese 'almost as wealthy as Europeans', the USA economy will be so depressed most people won't be able to afford to drive automobiles; at least not nearly like they do today. The Chinese outnumber Americans and Europeans four to one. It is going to take a lot of USA dollars (and European Euro) to bring the Chinese standard of living up to the point that the average Chinese is as wealthy as your average European.

It isn't likely to become a reality because China's economic growth is dependant on exports. If China sucks too much money out of the host nations that support her exports, the hosts will become anemic and China’s economy will top out.
mike, much as I'm not an admirer of "neoliberal"/right wing economist Milton Friedman, I think his statement quoted in someone's sig here on bikeforums applies. Something to the effect that it's a fallacy to assume one person can only get rich by impoverishing another. In fact, China has the resources, labour force and intellectual capital, that if they want to build a car for every Chinese citizen they can probably find a way to do it.

...but remember that rail cars are very unpredictable so you won't know exactly when your rail car is going to arrive for you to load. it can be anywhere within a two or three week window. This means you can't guarantee the arrival either. So, if you are willing to contend with unpredictable rail delivery and have a lot to ship and you don't mind your product being damaged (and often stolen - called 'shrink'), then you can save a little money by going rail

...I like the idea of rail too. I have seen rail used effectively all around the world. In the USA, however, that is NOT the case. Beyond the equipment being shabby and in poor condition, the whole USA rail system is a mess and simply is not practical for most producers and for most goods.

That sort of problem is fixable. Containers can be tagged and tracked, just the way fedex parcels are, and incentives for on-time delivery and penalties for delays would make rail companies take notice. All modes of transportation are publically subsidized, and trucking costs are partly subsidized by the provision of many "free" roads, even though trucks are the main cause of incredibly expensive road repair/maintenace costs. Ajustments in highway toll structures to reflect the true cost of providing truck lanes could easily make rail a better economic choice for long distance haulage

mike, much as I'm not an admirer of "neoliberal"/right wing economist Milton Friedman, I think his statement quoted in someone's sig here on bikeforums applies. Something to the effect that it's a fallacy to assume one person can only get rich by impoverishing another. In fact, China has the resources, labour force and intellectual capital, that if they want to build a car for every Chinese citizen they can probably find a way to do it.

I am not saying that the ONLY way China could enjoy wealth is by exploiting their cost advantages against the West. However, I will say with confidence that this is the approach they are taking now - and I certainly do not blame them. China might have the resources to create wealth for the average citizen through their own domestic markets, but they have not done this for at least 400 years.

If there ever was a chance for the Chinese to "build a car for every Chinese citizen", it was during the communist years when the government had the control needed to organize it and put to use all of China's resources. They couldn't even feed their people much less put them in cars. So, for all practical purposes, China will continue to grow by exploiting foreign markets and, like all other nations who have relied on the USA economy for it's exports, when the USA economy get soft, so will China's in short order.

That sort of problem is fixable. Containers can be tagged and tracked, just the way fedex parcels are, and incentives for on-time delivery and penalties for delays would make rail companies take notice. All modes of transportation are publically subsidized, and trucking costs are partly subsidized by the provision of many "free" roads, even though trucks are the main cause of incredibly expensive road repair/maintenace costs. Ajustments in highway toll structures to reflect the true cost of providing truck lanes could easily make rail a better economic choice for long distance haulage

You are correct, Cooker. The USA rail system COULD be fixed, but it isn't fixed and it doesn't look like it is going to get fixed in our lifetime. There is enough financial incentive already - with good management, rail has the potential to kick truck transportation in the ass, but it just isn't happening. Potential won't buy you a cup of coffee.