Originally Posted by
Artkansas
That's an unknown really. Cutting it out instantaneously, yes that would cause problems, but we know it won't happen. But I bet that if we to a phased and sustained effort to revive trains, use buses, revitalize urban centers with the idea that they should be walkable, cycleable, public transportational, and car ownership discouraged, that we will actually find that our economy is stimulated. The money that previously went into cars would go instead into real estate, dining, sports events, music, etc. Think of one of the most car-hostile cities in this country, New York.
I live in the country, I suspect you do not. My perspective of car ownership and oil dependency is colored by this. The lack of affordable oil will kill off rural areas. There is evidence of such now. Before the age of auto transport there was a huge disparity of the standard of living between a rural area and a major metropolitan area. There will be again once oil rises to unaffordable levels. Also the automotive industry employs a lot of people here in the USA. Compare that to the bicycle industry whose manufacturing base is almost exclusively overseas. I'd bet most of the parts on your as bike as well as mine came from half way around the world.
There is nothing wrong with trying to do what you mentioned for cities in your post. To do otherwise in a densely settled area would be inefficient. That said areas that are thickly settled like New York City never had a big need for a car. NYC was designed to be more people friendly simply because of it's age. Newer developments are designed for the car which while short sighted perhaps is reality. In these newer cities you will loose economic output simply because the manpower of maintaining and running an infrastructure that is more mass transit/pedestrian/cyclist friendly requires fewer people to make such a system work. Gas stations, car dealerships, auto repair, ect all help to drive economic activity in such areas.
Now in rural areas discouraging car ownership would effectively be signing an economic death sentence to such areas. It is normal to have to drive 30 miles or more one way to get to work where I live. Jobs pay very little, 10 dollars an hour is considered to be a good wage
I do not need to be an expert in economic theory to figure out what happens when you take away the one thing that has made rural living comfortable. I see it directly, when fuel goes up it makes everything more expensive. Nothing is locally made anymore so anything in stores has most likely been shipped thousands of miles from it's point of origin.
Every penny that fuel goes up is a penny less that rural individuals can put into their local economy. There are no good solutions for rural areas, just ones that may hurt less than others. I accept this and don't have a problem with it. I just have a problem with people who think that somehow baring some sort of revolutionary new energy source, we'll be able to pull through this without some discomfort. That very notion is what is holding up any serious effort to avoid serious complications from environmental and resource problems.