There's another issue with ethanol. Because it requires agricultural land to grow the crops to make fuel, it means there is less worldwide crop land available to grow food for people. There are more than 6.6 billion people on the earth and far too many will die of hunger-related causes. We also have a finite amount of agricultural land available. By growing crops to make fuel, are we taking food from the hungry?

Yes of course. If we increase demand for cropland, we will raise the price of the land, and that will be passed on to consumers. Many consumers are barely making it now, so even small increases in food prices can be devestating. It's sad that just as millions of people have finally gotten beyond starvation, the use of croplands for fuel might push them back into it. They may bear a grudge against the industrial world if they see their children going to bed hungry in order to keep the SUVs on the road.

Eventually, if the biofuel course is taken, additional croplands will be cleared and food prices will find some balance point. Unfortunately, the clearing of forests and prairies releases more greenhouse gasses, possibly even more than what's released by internal combustion engines.

Biofuels are a solution that some American drivers would like, as it would allow the continued dominance of private cars. But it really isn't a good way to go. IMO, the best solution is to start making electricity with solar and wind, then powering either plug-in cars or hydrogen fuel cells with the renewable electricity.

There's another issue with ethanol. Because it requires agricultural land to grow the crops to make fuel, it means there is less worldwide crop land available to grow food for people. There are more than 6.6 billion people on the earth and far too many will die of hunger-related causes. We also have a finite amount of agricultural land available. By growing crops to make fuel, are we taking food from the hungry?

Ethanol policy is foolish at best, criminal at worst.

Last year, primarily due to federal subsides and mandates, the USA produced 7 billion gallons of ethanol. The government has mandated that we produce 37 billion gallons a year by 2025. Good luck with that!

It takes an estimated two and a half bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol. If we figure 2 bushels per gallon, it would take 74 billion bushels of corn to reach the mandated 37 billion gallons. Where is that amount of corn going to come from? The 2002 agriculture census says that there is 434 million acres of cropland in the USA. (Defined as the sum of land used for crops, idle land, and pasture.) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

If we assume all acreage yields todays average corn crop of 151 bushels per acre, (It wouldn't, for we are calculating land that is better suited for other crops in this method. I am being VERY generous in my calculations!) and devote every acre cropland in America to corn, we would produce 66 billion bushels of corn. We would have to import another 8 billion bushels? And all of our wheat, soybeans and worst of all, hops would have to be imported. The government mandate is simply not possible.

We need to scrap the mandates. It is wrong headed to squander resources on schemes that won't work because it necessarily is starving capital from the real and eventual solutions. (The opportunity cost of capital: You can only spend your cash once.) This is precisely why government interference is harmful. Governments have a dismal record of picking winners, and thus squander opportunity and capital.

It took me about half an hour to Google all this. It ain't rocket science, obviously, it was simply running the numbers. Today's output of ethanol is unsustainable, let alone what congress is pushing for. New ethanol plants are being scrapped even now. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/magazines/fortune/ethanol.fortune/index.htm Ethanol will never be more than a tiny part of the mix.

Why do you hate the planet, Chipseal? :lol:

Producing biofuels for vehicles that don't produce at least 1.5 BTU energy output per 1 BTU input is a waste of labor, land, etc. We should not be mandating or subsidizing this sort of production.

+1

There's another issue with ethanol. Because it requires agricultural land to grow the crops to make fuel, it means there is less worldwide crop land available to grow food for people. There are more than 6.6 billion people on the earth and far too many will die of hunger-related causes. We also have a finite amount of agricultural land available. By growing crops to make fuel, are we taking food from the hungry?

Maybe it is a good thing that the Henry Ford "soybean car" was never put into production.

http://www.thehenryford.org/research/services/populartopics/SoybeanCar/default.asp

Chipseal is correct. IMHO ethanol from corn was nothing but a money grab on the part of AGM/Cargil and the agriculture lobby. It is a classic case of feel good politics while blowing smoke up the taxpayers backsides. It is totally unsustainable and does nothing to address the problems at hand. There are many other crops that produce 3-5 times as much ethanol per acre than corn. I am convinced that the goverment in the US is no longer for the people, but for the privileged few. Change is coming and it will come from the grassroots, because the federal government, state government and most local government aren't going to be able to make the changes necessary, quickly enough.

Aaron:)

It's sad that just as millions of people have finally gotten beyond starvation, the use of croplands for fuel might push them back into it. They may bear a grudge against the industrial world if they see their children going to bed hungry in order to keep the SUVs on the road.
We've already been doing that with some other products. In some third world countries, prime agricultural land is used for specialty crops which are sold to rich western nations. Meanwhile, the residents on those countries are forced to farm poor land or difficult slopes for their own food sources.

This is precisely why government interference is harmful. Governments have a dismal record of picking winners, and thus squander opportunity and capital.


So in your opinion the Erie Canal, Interstate Highway System, Panama Canal, Manhattan Project, moon landing and the Hubble telescope--all developed by the US government--were part of this dismal record?

(Of course I agree with the rest of your post, but I couldn't pass this one by! :p)

Your knowledge of history is very good - you remember the winners.

Now, I'd love to see the list of all the other projects that the government supported, the ones that failed and aren't particularly written up in the history books. I have a feeling that list would be a LOT longer.

Even the most incompetent failure succeeds once in a while, assuming he tries often enough.

Maybe it is a good thing that the Henry Ford "soybean car" was never put into production.

http://www.thehenryford.org/research/services/populartopics/SoybeanCar/default.asp

Just the same, give the guy credit - he was trying to come up with a better, lower cost, solution. Unfortunately, the technology of the time wasn't up to the demand.

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.

I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.

$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.

Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.

What do you think?

I think that the word "idiotic" doesn't quite describe and do full justice to your post.

I, for one, would like to see this car-centric living impossibly expensive and as inconvenient as possible.

I like to see these policies implemented, it's not going to happen in North America, but we carfree people can only dream.

$20 per gallon for gasoline and diesel sounds like a good number.
However, there should be subsidies for the following:
- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

A 200% tax on every new automobile sold.

Excessive parking fees, or better yet, no parking spaces at all. I don't fancy seeing people's property parking on public road. Just think of how less land is required with there were no parking spaces.

What do you think?

Brilliant! I like the subsidies. That way, people that don't own cars can contribute too. And has anyone asked about handicapped folks, or are they just expected to stay at home? This would be great for our economy, especially tourism.

You should run for office.

I am convinced that the goverment in the US is no longer for the people, but for the privileged few. Change is coming and it will come from the grassroots, because the federal government, state government and most local government aren't going to be able to make the changes necessary, quickly enough.

Aaron:)

Took you long enough to notice that of, by and for the people means the rich ones.

I think that the word "idiotic" doesn't quite describe and do full justice to your post.

Coming from SoCal, not surprised. Give it a decade, when $20 a gallon is the reality, I hope you find a way to cope with it. BTW, Norway, UK, and Hong Kong's gasoline price is $6-7 per gallon in 2006. Given the current trend, $20 per gallon is not too far off. Singapore and Denmark has already implemented a 200% tax on every new vehicle sold. These governments look after the welfare of the people, not fattening the pockets of the auto and oil industries.


Brilliant! I like the subsidies. That way, people that don't own cars can contribute too. And has anyone asked about handicapped folks, or are they just expected to stay at home?.

There are walkable neighbourhoods, where the use of automobiles are not needed. Towns in BC with high numbers of seniors have been designed this way.

This would be great for our economy, especially tourism.


Economies will learn to adapt or die off. Tourism is an unnecessary industry, besides, I hate tourist.

I guess that explains the steady decline in private vehicle ownership in Hong Kong. Now all we need to do is start razing entire cities and redesigning them. And we'll no longer need to teach our children about different cultures, since we'll all just stay at home. Heck, there won't be any need to leave the neighborhood!

Where in BC did you say you lived?

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/8235/imag/crackpot.jpg

First I just moved to SoCal for grad school. When I was in NorCal I commuted by bike when I worked, by BART when I did undergrad, now I commute by bike again. I put more miles on my bikes then on my car. So take your assumptions and shove them. I still think your original proposal is idiotic.
There is a reason for that tax, and I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with them carrying for "welfare of the people". :rolleyes:

Coming from SoCal, not surprised. Give it a decade, when $20 a gallon is the reality, I hope you find a way to cope with it. BTW, Norway, UK, and Hong Kong's gasoline price is $6-7 per gallon in 2006. Given the current trend, $20 per gallon is not too far off. Singapore and Denmark has already implemented a 200% tax on every new vehicle sold. These governments look after the welfare of the people, not fattening the pockets of the auto and oil industries.




There are walkable neighbourhoods, where the use of automobiles are not needed. Towns in BC with high numbers of seniors have been designed this way.



Economies will learn to adapt or die off. Tourism is an unnecessary industry, besides, I hate tourist.

I guess that explains the steady decline in private vehicle ownership in Hong Kong. Now all we need to do is start razing entire cities and redesigning them. And we'll no longer need to teach our children about different cultures, since we'll all just stay at home. Heck, there won't be any need to leave the neighborhood!

Where in BC did you say you lived?


Much as I dislike tourism, tourism industry is not limited to oil exclusively. Bicycle tourisms??? Tourisms by sailboats? Electric rail tourism (mostly applicable only in Europe)?

Tourism industry is an important part of BC's economy, heck I have several friends in the industry, they are out of jobs if the industry crashes. Whether or not how vital an industry is to the local economy, it doesn't give me a reason to appreciate it.

I'm no advocating people to stay at home. Given the oil price are implemented in a specific country, tourism thrives because of the citizens in those countries with high oil price do not own cars or any of the cost associated with car ownership, thus they have enough funds to travel to other places. Instead of buying a new car and all the cost associated with car ownership which they do not need, they have enough funds to travel to places, perhaps places like BC or where you live.

Vancouver gets a lot of visitors from HK and Singapore. I've worked in a bike shop before, I had customers from England, Denmark, Netherland, Germany, places with high gas prices and minimal need for car ownership, what do they do, they travel.

I forgot to ask about police/fire/ambulance.

I forgot to ask about police/fire/ambulance.

What about them? I have seen electric ones...

Aaron:)

I guess that explains the steady decline in private vehicle ownership in Hong Kong. Now all we need to do is start razing entire cities and redesigning them. And we'll no longer need to teach our children about different cultures, since we'll all just stay at home. Heck, there won't be any need to leave the neighborhood!
[/IMG]

I don't think that a post-auto age will be very similar to the pre-auto age. We will always use advanced technology and new social systems to our advantage. What people are talking about is not a regression to horse and buggy, but a progression to new vehicles and infrastructure--perhaps systems so new that we can't even imagine them yet. In the near future, (10 to 20 years?) I think we'll go to plug-in electric vehicles, and use solar, wind and other renewable sources to generate the power to recharge their batteries. I also think that well-off people will voluntarily use cars less, and walking, bikes and public transit more. This is already starting to happen.

After that....who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. But if you think that gasoline powered ICE automobiles are going to be used for longer than a few years, I think you'll be very surprised.

I forgot to ask - where does this $20 figure come from? Is that a $16+ tax on the current cost? I'd like to know which politician is brave enough to sign off on that.

It seems to me that personal motor cars are already unreasonably expensive and inconvenient to run and own.

three billion + people can't be wrong.

FWIW I can't figure out how anyone can justify the cost of car ownership - I would much rather spend the money on my retirement, home renovations or vacations. Too bad so many people have so little respect for their own time and wealth they waste them on what is (to me) an unpleasant inconvenience.

It seems to me that personal motor cars are already unreasonably expensive and inconvenient to run and own.


My first home cost me $120k, and I had neighbors that spent more than that on a single car. There are plenty of folks out there who consider a bicycle from the LBS unreasonably expensive. It's all a matter of perspective and tax brackets.

I forgot to ask about police/fire/ambulance.

I have no solutions for the fire department, they will have to just eat the cost of oil.

This is a possible following scenario.

For police and ambulance however, should automobile usage be limited and walking, cycling be utilized more, society will likely be healthier, and less car accident should occur due to the decline in car usage. Since less car will be on the road, less traffic patrol will be needed by the police (BC's RCMP spends 50% of their budget on traffic enforcement, it will likely be higher in areas with more cars and highways). Less car accident and healthier people will led to the lower usage of ambulances (they're still there, just not used as often as needed).
Closer proximity between people living in communities will allow more frequent contact between neighbours adding to their mental wellness. With high density living, police officers can patrol the area by foot instead of cars (which also greatly reduces the cost of policing as squad cars are quite expensive, I've seen police patrol on foot often enough in Downtown Vancouver, where I live).

I forgot to ask - where does this $20 figure come from?

I thought it would be a nice even round number, not as outrageous as $50 also not as affordable as $5.
At $5 per gallon, people will still complain and whine like they always do, there is no incentive to change. Actions are taken when the threshold of tolerance is reached, $20 sounds nice.

It's also a possible real world market price should crude oil cost $600-700 per barrel. The price you see at the gas station is not a good indication for the current market price for unleaded gasoline at all. Government subsidies for oil price exist in many countries, so much that in Venezuela, world's least expensive oil price country, auto industries doesn't even bother to use mileage ratings per gallon because oil is so cheap. Currently, China, USA, Indonesia, etc have subsidies for oil price so you don't pay the true market value.

It seems to me that personal motor cars are already unreasonably expensive and inconvenient to run and own.

To most people, cars are a necessity that is worth the extra expensive and inconvenience. Think of it as the constant cultural conditioning that trumps logic and reasoning.

I don't think that a post-auto age will be very similar to the pre-auto age. We will always use advanced technology and new social systems to our advantage. What people are talking about is not a regression to horse and buggy, but a progression to new vehicles and infrastructure--perhaps systems so new that we can't even imagine them yet. In the near future, (10 to 20 years?) I think we'll go to plug-in electric vehicles, and use solar, wind and other renewable sources to generate the power to recharge their batteries. I also think that well-off people will voluntarily use cars less, and walking, bikes and public transit more. This is already starting to happen.

After that....who knows? Your guess is as good as mine. But if you think that gasoline powered ICE automobiles are going to be used for longer than a few years, I think you'll be very surprised.

I prefer just limiting the use of automobiles (electric power or not) all together. Electric vehicles only solve the problem of pollution (that is if the production of electricity is near zero emission source), you forget traffic congestions, the need for roads, the danger of motor vehicle, and the land needed to facilitate cars.

I thought it would be a nice even round number, not as outrageous as $50 also not as affordable as $5.
At $5 per gallon, people will still complain and whine like they always do, there is no incentive to change. Actions are taken when the threshold of tolerance is reached, $20 sounds nice.

It's also a possible real world market price should crude oil cost $600-700 per barrel. The price you see at the gas station is not a good indication for the current market price for unleaded gasoline at all. Government subsidies for oil price exist in many countries, so much that in Venezuela, world's least expensive oil price country, auto industries doesn't even bother to use mileage ratings per gallon because oil is so cheap. Currently, China, USA, Indonesia, etc have subsidies for oil price so you don't pay the true market value.
I agree with removing subsidies from the pump price, but I don't like your $20 figure for a number of reasons.

First, fuel prices have already been escalating rapidly in the last few years. The price has more than doubled in the past decade alone but wages haven't kept pace. As fuel prices continue to jump (they've risen seven or eight cents a litre in the past two weeks here in the Okanagan) motorists will have to think carefully about how they drive.

Second, the $600 to $700 a barrel price of crude is nowhere near the reality. Right now, crude oil is around the $100 mark. Long before the price rises to the $600 to $700 range, you'll see alternative fuel vehicles on the roads. At those prices, oil would remain as a lubricant and as a fuel where nothing else is practical.

Third, if governments are to get involved, the place to start would be with fuel economy requirements for vehicle manufacturers. Small cars today get decent mileage, but nothing too spectacular.

Fourth, if you want driving priced so high, then we need to have transportation alternatives. You might have those alternatives in Vancouver and other larger cities, but we don't have them in the less populated areas. Until this becomes a reality for us, I cannot support any efforts to jack up the price of fuel.

For police and ambulance however, should automobile usage be limited and walking, cycling be utilized more, society will likely be healthier, and less car accident should occur due to the decline in car usage. Since less car will be on the road, less traffic patrol will be needed by the police (BC's RCMP spends 50% of their budget on traffic enforcement, it will likely be higher in areas with more cars and highways). Less car accident and healthier people will led to the lower usage of ambulances (they're still there, just not used as often as needed).
Closer proximity between people living in communities will allow more frequent contact between neighbours adding to their mental wellness. With high density living, police officers can patrol the area by foot instead of cars (which also greatly reduces the cost of policing as squad cars are quite expensive, I've seen police patrol on foot often enough in Downtown Vancouver, where I live).

OMG please google "less vs. fewer" :eek:

That was downright painful to read.

- transportation for products (shippers)
- occupation requiring the use of automobile (contractors, landscapers, etc)
- large item deliveries

Transportation of products is the ABSOLUTE LAST place that should be subsidized. It's actually heavily subsidized already.

1. Every 18-wheeler on the road causes roughly 10,000 times the damage to the highway system as the average car (think about that the next time you're stuck in traffic waiting for construction)
2. There are cost-effective alternatives to long distance transport (rail and waterway) that are currently being neglected

Having said that, your ideas will cause people to label you a lunatic and dismiss you. $20 *will* bring the nation to a standstill, it will be rejected after a year (who are we kidding, we couldn't get a $0.10 tax on fuel through congress), never to return. Think more reasonable, my personal thought is to slap a extra $1.00 on fuel.

Third, if governments are to get involved, the place to start would be with fuel economy requirements for vehicle manufacturers. Small cars today get decent mileage, but nothing too spectacular.

Increasing mileage of vehicles does not decrease fuel usage.

I forgot to ask - where does this $20 figure come from? Is that a $16+ tax on the current cost? I'd like to know which politician is brave enough to sign off on that.

John Kerry once supported a $0.50 tax on fuel. Of course he ran away from it as soon as he became a presidential candidate.

Having said that, your ideas will cause people to label you a lunatic and dismiss you. $20 *will* bring the nation to a standstill, it will be rejected after a year (who are we kidding, we couldn't get a $0.10 tax on fuel through congress), never to return. Think more reasonable, my personal thought is to slap a extra $1.00 on fuel.

John Kerry once supported a $0.50 tax on fuel. Of course he ran away from it as soon as he became a presidential candidate.

Your comments, unlike those of the OP, make sense. Let me know if the rest of this thread gets turned around into a logical, reasonable discussion.

At this point, consumers won't even support a modest increase in gas taxes to pay for much needed road repairs, even though these repairs are clearly in their own best interests.

I think that if a country ever decides to discourage gas usage, a fairer and more effective method is to put the tax on gas-hog cars rather than on fuel. It might work to impose a $100 tax per mpg under 40 mpg, then raise the mpg standard a little every year.

Your comments, unlike those of the OP, make sense. Let me know if the rest of this thread gets turned around into a logical, reasonable discussion.

And of course your posts have done so much to raise the quality of the discussion. ;)

All those roads promote commerce. Did the good you purchase arrive at the store via helicopter? Or on on a truck? We take cheap and easy transportation of goods for granted but it doesn't come for free.

FWIW, as a truck driver, you can't name me one single thing that you have or use (except the air you breath) that hasn't had - in one form or another - at least 2 trips on a truck. And, most have had at 4 or more.

The car you drive? Nope, raw material to the steel plant. Steel plant to the parts plant. Parts plant to the car manufacturer. Finished car to the dealer. And that's just the steel. Think of everything else that goes in to a car.

The house you live in? No, even if it is a hole you dug in to the side of a hill..... cause you had a shovel - you had to get it some how.

Water you drink? No, the pipes, faucets, water plant and it's construction......

It goes on for ever. Oh, and if you have to breath O2 from a tank..... even the air you breath got there by way of a truck.

Cars and trucks pay a tax on every gallon of fuel put in them - that's how the roads are paid for. They aren't 'free'. And when you consider how many times everything that we have and use is transported...... that's a heck of a lot of money.

Transportation of products is the ABSOLUTE LAST place that should be subsidized. It's actually heavily subsidized already.

1. Every 18-wheeler on the road causes roughly 10,000 times the damage to the highway system as the average car (think about that the next time you're stuck in traffic waiting for construction)
2. There are cost-effective alternatives to long distance transport (rail and waterway) that are currently being neglected

FWIW, I am a truck driver. And, yes, trucks do cause more damage...... but the real reason is that the interstate system was originally designed and meant FOR trucks (read commerce) and the military to move throughout the country. But since that time car use has exploded so much that the states/counties/cities have to build so MANY more roads they have to engineer them to what they can afford for now. Yeah, we'll have to rebuild it in 3-5 years, but its good for now.

Yes, there are more cost effective ways to move freight, but everyone wants everything now! They don't want to wait 2 weeks to get that TV or Stereo or couch or whatever. So rail and water doesn't work! WE won't put up with it.

Now, I don't have any idea where you come up with the statement that the transportation industry is subsidized.... unless you're talking about air transportation or AmTrac. And the airlines or AmTrac are, but should not be subsidized. The trucking industry - which really moves almost everything we have gets very little government money.

FWIW, as a truck driver, you can't name me one single thing that you have or use (except the air you breath) that hasn't had - in one form or another - at least 2 trips on a truck. And, most have had at 4 or more.

The car you drive? Nope, raw material to the steel plant. Steel plant to the parts plant. Parts plant to the car manufacturer. Finished car to the dealer. And that's just the steel. Think of everything else that goes in to a car.

The house you live in? No, even if it is a hole you dug in to the side of a hill..... cause you had a shovel - you had to get it some how.

Water you drink? No, the pipes, faucets, water plant and it's construction......

It goes on for ever. Oh, and if you have to breath O2 from a tank..... even the air you breath got there by way of a truck.

Cars and trucks pay a tax on every gallon of fuel put in them - that's how the roads are paid for. They aren't 'free'. And when you consider how many times everything that we have and use is transported...... that's a heck of a lot of money.

SOME of the roads are paid for by fuel tax. Around here the maintenance and a lot of the building of roads is paid for by local option sales tax and property taxes. Many things could be moved much more efficiently by freight railroads (which AFAIK pay their own way) Yes we need trucks, but do we really need them to be hauling Florida Oranges to CA and California Oranges to FL? I think not, it is only a what is about to become a very expensive convenience. Trucks would be better suited to move things from local freight depots to the local stores.

FWIW I pretty much adhere to the 100 mile diet (http://100milediet.org/), for the most part. And a substantial portion of my diet comes from within a 50 mile radius. I am very fortunate that there is a local IGA that owns his own canning plant as well as a packing house. Most of the stuff he processes comes from local farms.

Aaron:)

FWIW, I am a truck driver. And, yes, trucks do cause more damage...... but the real reason is that the interstate system was originally designed and meant FOR trucks (read commerce) and the military to move throughout the country. But since that time car use has exploded so much that the states/counties/cities have to build so MANY more roads they have to engineer them to what they can afford for now. Yeah, we'll have to rebuild it in 3-5 years, but its good for now.

Yes, there are more cost effective ways to move freight, but everyone wants everything now! They don't want to wait 2 weeks to get that TV or Stereo or couch or whatever. So rail and water doesn't work! WE won't put up with it.

Now, I don't have any idea where you come up with the statement that the transportation industry is subsidized.... unless you're talking about air transportation or AmTrac. And the airlines or AmTrac are, but should not be subsidized. The trucking industry - which really moves almost everything we have gets very little government money.

No people don't want to wait, as fuel prices increase they will either pay much more or learn to wait. Also from what I can determine the interstate system was developed to to move freight and war materials in a efficient manner. However the maximum weight of the trucks has more than doubled since the interstate was originally built and the average speeds of those trucks has risen. That is what is causing the massive damage. I was told by a high way engineer that the damage level increases exponentially with both weight and speed. You could "possibly" chose higher weights with lower speeds.

Aaron:)

At this point, consumers won't even support a modest increase in gas taxes to pay for much needed road repairs, even though these repairs are clearly in their own best interests.

We do this all the time. For example, South Carolina citizens just passed a *2 cent* sales tax increase -- a penny for education statewide, and a penny for roads in Horry County (Myrtle Beach). Unfortunately it has to hurt bad before people will go for this -- SC has the deadliest roads in the US, and they're second to last in education (ahead of Mississippi).

I think that if a country ever decides to discourage gas usage, a fairer and more effective method is to put the tax on gas-hog cars rather than on fuel. It might work to impose a $100 tax per mpg under 40 mpg, then raise the mpg standard a little every year.

We've done this already. The problem is that it only applies to cars, not trucks, which is what half of Americans drive. Buy a V8 sedan that gets 20 MPG and pay thousands in gas guzzler tax, but buy a "truck" that gets 12 MPG and pay nothing. (There's that SUV loophole again.)

Fuel taxes work out pretty well, since fuel use is almost perfectly proportional to road wear and pollution. But fuel taxes are regressive and punish the poor, who spend a higher percentage of their income on fuel, and statistically have longer commutes.

One of the biggest factors keeping people mired in poverty in the US is their being dependent on vehicles they really can't afford. They have no choice but to keep some rolling wreck on the road, which they can't afford to keep in good repair, or pay insurance and registration for. So they wind up in trouble for that, and having to pay big fines. Then the car breaks down, and it's cheaper to just get another than fix the first one -- which stays parked in the front yard, because they can't afford to get rid of it. And so on.

If only they could ride bikes!

Anyway, pricing motor transportation out of reach doesn't work. There's plenty of evidence! People will do what it takes to afford it, unless they have viable alternatives.

Then there's the emotional factor. Take a really poor kid from the ghetto and give him a choice between a decent work wardrobe and a bus pass, or a crappy car that barely runs. Which do you think he would pick?

What about people who can't walk or bike due to old age or physical handicaps? The last few years of his life, my late father would have been housebound if he hadn't been able to drive (or have me drive him) places.

What about people who can't walk or bike due to old age or physical handicaps? The last few years of his life, my late father would have been housebound if he hadn't been able to drive (or have me drive him) places.

As rural of a county that I live in, they have a great transit system for older people. One of my coworkers has his mom living with them. She isn't in bad health, but not fit to drive. All she has to do is call carroll transit and they will come pick her up and take her anywhere. And it is affordable enough that she can use it whenever.

Actually in looking at it, it is for everyone, but reduced rates for seniors.

As rural of a county that I live in, they have a great transit system for older people. One of my coworkers has his mom living with them. She isn't in bad health, but not fit to drive. All she has to do is call carroll transit and they will come pick her up and take her anywhere. And it is affordable enough that she can use it whenever.

Actually in looking at it, it is for everyone, but reduced rates for seniors.

Then you are very lucky. We don't have anything like that here.

And what about people who live out in the country? I have relatives who own a dairy and corn farm in Indiana. They live at least an hour's drive from anywhere. What are they to do in your hypothetical society? In order to pay for the fuel for their tractors and harvesters and other farm equipment they'd have to raise what they ask for their crops--which turn their customers would pass on to the consumers.

Then you are very lucky. We don't have anything like that here.

And what about people who live out in the country? I have relatives who own a dairy and corn farm in Indiana. They live at least an hour's drive from anywhere. What are they to do in your hypothetical society? In order to pay for the fuel for their tractors and harvesters and other farm equipment they'd have to raise what they ask for their crops--which turn their customers would pass on to the consumers.

I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. I've spent some time in rural Indiana. I doubt very much if there's a single point in Indiana that's more than a 30 minute drive from the nearest Walmart.

Your main point that it's hard to be carfree in rural areas is true enough. Although millions of farmers did it in the 1800s, I don't imagine it was an easy or happy life for many of them. But where have you ever heard anybody say that it should be against the law for rural people to drive cars? Unfortunately, if (when) gas gets to be very expensive, rural people will suffer a lot if no alternative is found. That's why we'll start looking now, if we're smart.

BTW, here in Michigan at least, almost all of the rural counties have an on-demand bus service. You call in advance and they send a bus to your house to pick you up. I'm pretty sure that's what derath was referring to. It's very common, whether you're aware of it or not. I think they even have it in Indiana. ;)

As rural of a county that I live in, they have a great transit system for older people. One of my coworkers has his mom living with them. She isn't in bad health, but not fit to drive. All she has to do is call carroll transit and they will come pick her up and take her anywhere. And it is affordable enough that she can use it whenever.

Actually in looking at it, it is for everyone, but reduced rates for seniors.

Then you are very lucky. We don't have anything like that here...

Elkhound, you live there and probably have more information, but the Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority has a curb to curb demand paratransit bus service. However it's restricted to people who can't use the normal bus service according to ADA guidelines, that probably means elderly or disabled people with a note from a doctor.

http://www.rideonkrt.com/passenger-info.html

Even when public transit is available in an area, most people don't seem to be aware of it. That's why car free and car light people need to make an effort to research their local transit resources, sometimes you find some good stuff.

BTW, here in Michigan at least, almost all of the rural counties have an on-demand bus service. You call in advance and they send a bus to your house to pick you up. I'm pretty sure that's what derath was referring to. It's very common, whether you're aware of it or not. I think they even have it in Indiana. ;)
I don't know how they run such a service in Michigan or Indiana, but where I'm living, it's rather cumbersome to use. It's a Monday to Friday daytime hours service and it requires phoning ahead to reserve a spot at least 24 hours in advance. It's designed for the elderly and the disabled and they get first service. The service also has a run to Penticton, but it's only available at limited times Monday to Friday and it's primarily for elderly people who need to go to the hospital for tests or appointments.

I don't know how they run such a service in Michigan or Indiana, but where I'm living, it's rather cumbersome to use. It's a Monday to Friday daytime hours service and it requires phoning ahead to reserve a spot at least 24 hours in advance. It's designed for the elderly and the disabled and they get first service. The service also has a run to Penticton, but it's only available at limited times Monday to Friday and it's primarily for elderly people who need to go to the hospital for tests or appointments.

On-demand bus service is pretty cumbersome here too. It varies a lot by county, and it's primarily available in rural and small town areas that don't have fixed route service. Rides could take forever, since they were taking other people too. You sure got to see a lot of the county!

But it is available in many places and, as Platy said, most people don't even know about it. It helped me out some when I lived briefly in a small town. But I would hate to have to rely on it for my primary transit.

Elkhound, you live there and probably have more information, but the Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority has a curb to curb demand paratransit bus service. However it's restricted to people who can't use the normal bus service according to ADA guidelines, that probably means elderly or disabled people with a note from a doctor.

You have to make an appointment for it 24 to 48 hours in advance.

But where have you ever heard anybody say that it should be against the law for rural people to drive cars?

Yes, I have heard people on this and similar boards express the opinion that cars should be completely abolished and prohibited.

You have to make an appointment for it 24 to 48 hours in advance.

That is a big drawback, but better than no service at all, which is what you told us earlier. 24 hour notice might work for many retirees and for commuters who know their schedule in advance. Obviously your area needs major improvements in public transit if (when) gas prices become prohibitively expensive.

That is a big drawback, but better than no service at all, which is what you told us earlier. 24 hour notice might work for many retirees and for commuters who know their schedule in advance. Obviously your area needs major improvements in public transit if (when) gas prices become prohibitively expensive.

Actually, our fixed-route bus service is pretty good. They even have bike racks on ALL the busses.

One of my relatives is a farmer, who used to grow all sorts of crops, but thanks to the subsidies, he could only stay competitive with soybeans and corn. But I don't think that means that the concept of subsidies is flawed, just the way that concept's been applied thus far.

JeffS - you've commented on things that don't work, but do you see a solution that would?

I had a chat with the manager of one of our local bakeries recently and she said that they are really getting hit hard by the rising price of things like wheat flour (which she said she pays 300% more for now than she did a year ago). She and some of the other local bakers have been meeting with each other to try and figure out creative ways to cut costs. One local bakery is planning to stop selling bread by the loaf and only offer soups, sandwiches, and other baked goods they can make more off of. Other bakeries are just going to cut back on the variety offered and continue to raise prices. So it's official: Americans would rather drive than eat!


Sean