Living Car Free - not really car free....

not really car free, but in that direction

http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/07/smart-community-planning-more-transportation-options-lead-to-a-reduced-carbon-emissions.html

Well there it is, for all to read, straight from the Secretary of Transportation:


If we want to reduce transportation carbon emissions, we need to reduce the amount of driving we do.

A great way to reduce the amount of driving would have been to increase the tax on gasoline. It would have placed the fuel out of the reach of some, and would have saved many more from the illusion that they can afford an SUV. However, it's doubtful you'll ever see anything quite so direct.

so today as I was riding my Big Dummy with bike tools, stand and all
i was pedaling up HWY 68 out of Pacific Grove, Ca
up and over to Carmel

i started counting the cars
counting single occupancy vehicles
and those that carried at least 1 other passenger

i lost count

a vast majority were single occupancy

"In the end, folks, we're not talking about huge sacrifices. The DOT and the strategies outlined above can help smooth the transition to a less-car-dependent mobility."

A little googling reveals that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood sees cycling and other non-car alternatives as worthy of inclusion in the national transportation system.

From the alternative transportation point of view, this is progress. Didn't his predecessor Mary E. Peters say in 2007 that bikes aren't transportation?

A little googling reveals that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood sees cycling and other non-car alternatives as worthy of inclusion in the national transportation system.

From the alternative transportation point of view, this is progress. Didn't his predecessor Mary E. Peters say in 2007 that bikes aren't transportation?
Are you referring to this quote?
"Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. "
She would be correct if all the regular streets were safe for cycles and walking, bike paths and trails would be for recreational riding.

The Obama administraton is clearly a lot better than the previous one, but there's still much to be desired. I was disappointed with the amount of funding for non-auto transportation in the stimulus bill, for example.

I'm heartened to see that most of LaHood's blog posts concern non-auto transportation, but I still think he was one of Obama's poorer cabinet choices.

I'm heartened to see that most of LaHood's blog posts concern non-auto transportation, but I still think he was one of Obama's poorer cabinet choices.

Why? Isn't there some hope that he might be as influential as Earl Butz was in agriculture?

Why? Isn't there some hope that he might be as influential as Earl Butz was in agriculture?

"Tight *****, loose shoes, a warm place to ****."

The fact that I remember that dates myself.

removed by user

Why? Isn't there some hope that he might be as influential as Earl Butz was in agriculture?

Well, I hope so (although in a more positive direction than the one chosen by Butz). The leopard can change his spots, and LaHood is at the very least giving good lip service to non-car transportation.

How do you think NA governments owning a share of the auto industry is going to affect this?

He might have some interesting battles ahead of him from within his own government. Hopefully long-term thinking prevails and the auto industry can be morphed into the transportation industry.

How do you think NA governments owning a share of the auto industry is going to affect this?

He might have some interesting battles ahead of him from within his own government. Hopefully long-term thinking prevails and the auto industry can be morphed into the transportation industry.

My take is that the government can order GM and Chrysler to make smaller cars, but nobody can force American consumers to buy them. I think real change will come in changing the demand rather than the supply. Let's blame the consumers for demanding big gas guzzlers, instead of blaming car companies for providing them with what they want.

The main reason that Asian and European manufacturers are ahead of the Detroit 3 on small car production is that they have a domestic market for them--created by sound government policies like high taxes on fuel.

The main reason that Asian and European manufacturers are ahead of the Detroit 3 on small car production is that they have a domestic market for them--created by sound government policies like high taxes on fuel.

I think that is the rub right there. It is one thing to blame consumers but sound government policies are necessary to prod the consumers in the "right" direction. My point is that there is much less incentive for the government to create those policies when they have a stake in the automobile industry.

But to your point, governments can offer subsidies for more efficient automobiles which will still allow them to sell vehicles. Governments are starting to subsidize electric vehicles, which I suppose is a step in the right direction.
Globe and Mail article link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/driving-it-home/the-electric-car-subsidy-game/article1219338/) about the Ontario government electric car subsidy.

I think that is the rub right there. It is one thing to blame consumers but sound government policies are necessary to prod the consumers in the "right" direction. My point is that there is much less incentive for the government to create those policies when they have a stake in the automobile industry.

But to your point, governments can offer subsidies for more efficient automobiles which will still allow them to sell vehicles. Governments are starting to subsidize electric vehicles, which I suppose is a step in the right direction.
Globe and Mail article link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/driving-it-home/the-electric-car-subsidy-game/article1219338/) about the Ontario government electric car subsidy.

The US government is currently subsidizing small car purchases to the tune of $4500. It's still too early to tell what effect this will have.

Of course, I have some negative feelings about the government subsidizing ANY automobile purchases. If they have to subsidize something, why not bikes and busses?

They do subsidize busses. I don't think there is a public transportation service in the US that breaks even; all, or almost all, rely on government subsidies.

along the lines of "not really car free"

here i go again
another trip close to "launch date"
this time
Amtrak to Portland
hang out in the city for about a week
when my touring buddy arrives
then down the coast to Ventura/LA

of late
its been mostly the same routine
wrenching here and there on bikes
brining in some cash
which is almost always hauled in on a car

my typical +20hrs/wk on the bike
lately its been mostly on my Hunter 29er
yesterday just shy of 70 miles in just under 4hrs
the week before was a solid 120 miler in less than 8.5hrs
a crit the day before

saturday night, took The Dummy out with my girlfriend, she riding on the SnapDeck, out to dinner
along Cannery Row, then over to Pacific Grove for The Feast of Lanterns... mostly to watch the fireworks
etc...

I'm stoked to get to Portland
and to experience this "Platinum" bicycle city.
at the moment Portland is amidst a heat wave

I'm curious to see the shops
the jobs
the places to live, etc...

and of course there is the tour down the coast....

peace....d

Of course, I have some negative feelings about the government subsidizing ANY automobile purchases. If they have to subsidize something, why not bikes and busses?

In my opinion they ought to avoid subsidizing transportation most of the time. If the government gets involved only in specific situations where we know the free market won't handle things effectively by itself, I think we'll be better off.

I like buses (enough to support subsidies for them, actually) but the downside of subsidizing buses is that they compete with bicycles. It's difficult to subsidize transportation-bicycles to help them compete with buses, because government policy can't effectively separate recreation bicycles from transportation bicycles (and bicycles are so cheap to begin with!)

It would be nice (not feasible any time soon though) to avoid subsidies for transportation because of the simple fact that transportation is no more important than the other "necessity" sectors of the economy (food, homes, water). Anything that's underpriced due to government intervention is going to end up over-used - unfortunately, that includes fossil fuel powered transportation.

It would be nice (not feasible any time soon though) to avoid subsidies for transportation because of the simple fact that transportation is no more important than the other "necessity" sectors of the economy (food, homes, water). Anything that's underpriced due to government intervention is going to end up over-used - unfortunately, that includes fossil fuel powered transportation.

There's a crucial difference between transportation and other living expenses such as food, shelter, etc., which are largely under the individual's own control. Transportation systems are shared by a lot of people. Each person owns his/her own car or bike, but there's no way each person can own his/her own road. Government, in this case, is only the tool that we use to share resources that can't be utilized individually.