Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The Real Cost of Driving

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

The Real Cost of Driving

Old 07-23-02, 06:49 PM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Folks, we can agree that riding bikes instead of cars is a Good Thing. But it's not a good enough thing to influence the amount of driving people do.

In other words, the benefit of autos far, far exceeds the cost of autos, whether these costs are implicit, explicit, hidden, subsidized or whatever other claims have been made in this interminable thread.

As long as this is true, cycling will remain the primarily recreational activity it is.

(The same dynamic drives the mass unpopularity of mass transit though the cost of that alternative is enormous. But that's another matter ...)
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 06:58 PM
  #52  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Folks, we can agree that riding bikes instead of cars is a Good Thing. But it's not a good enough thing to influence the amount of driving people do.
I disagree.

Riding my bike has directly influenced the amount of driving I do. Not only that, it has directly influenced:

1) My pocketbook
2) My health
3) My attitude
4) My mental alertness
5) My perspective of how we, as a car-dependent nation, are a slave to oil companies, therefore "co-dependent" upon nations that both supply us oil and support terrorism.

Andy, I disagree with your argument that Americans drive because they choose to. Ask anyone if they want to give up their car and they will say, "No! How will I get to work? How will I get to the grocery store? How will I survive?" No, Americans drive because we have no other choice.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 07:22 PM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
KnightWhoSaysNi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Roughstuff


But given that most driven road miles are COMMERCE and SERVICE related, a bike is a poor, poor choice.

roughstuff
Here most travel is classed as social + personal
(data )

so you can cut car use by 1/4 if you just
with your neighbours...
KnightWhoSaysNi is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 09:08 PM
  #54  
Every lane is a bike lane
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally posted by Roughstuff
And stop the cackling about 'subsidies' to the auto industry since the roads are built by the states/feds. ORIGINALLY all the money for roads came from tolls and fees; then they switched to the gasoline tax.
Nobody even mentioned the "industry", or at least I didn't. I was merely pointing out the substantial tax credits people get for merely spending sh*tloads of money on their car, hence encouraging them to drive totally unnecessary km. I was wondering why I don't get the same tax credits for all the cycling I do.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 09:48 PM
  #55  
Every lane is a bike lane
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
As for toting kids, of course, there is almost no other way to do this than by car. Then again, in my old neighborhood, you could bike or walk to the park where the little league games were held.
The answer to this dilemma is very, very simple. They have legs, don't they? Is it any wonder there's been such a dramatic rise in child obesity levels?
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 10:31 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... No, Americans drive because we have no other choice...
Well, in a sense I agree. The sheer distances we deal with suggest this. As do the lifestyles we choose. However, no law dictacted the flight to the suburbs and of edge cities. The auto enabled these and people chose to inhabit these far-flung areas. People chose to commute longer distances by car.

People love cars. Americans in particular, it seems. We identify ourselves by the car. This is the demand side.

Even if we somehow erased all the social changes brought about by the car, to a point where people would have a choice, my bet is that the cycle would begin again. Why? Because people would choose once again to use the car as the principle means of transportation. The demand is too great.
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-23-02, 10:49 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
mechBgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
The auto enabled these and people chose to inhabit these far-flung areas.
I'd like to add my theory that modern refrigeration has also helped make this possible. People don't have to live close to a market to get food for supper every night, now that we can stockpile it and preserve it. I lived in Alaska when I was a child, and we drove about 100mi/160km to Anchorage every 3 or 4 weeks to buy food (this was very interesting in the wintertime, sometimes).

And now, back to our regularly-scheduled discussion...

I have to agree, America seems to have a strong love for automobiles. I look at all the highschoolers pouring money into crazy audio systems, US$2000 sets of aluminum wheels and other customizations, and I wonder where the money is coming from. Probably bought on credit, for many of them. Having paid off some student loans, I wonder how they are going to go forward in life when they have interest-bearing debts before they even...

*mechBgon notices that he is rambling on and on

Anyways... we've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it here. Let's hope for increasing awareness of environmental issues, and environtmentally-friendly cars.
mechBgon is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 12:03 AM
  #58  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Psychologists have known for years that our value systems "lock in" somewhere between the ages of 12 and 16 in most people. One noted psychologist could give people a pretty accurate profile of a person's value system if he know where they were when their values locked in, and the time period. He made a great film titled "What you are now is where you were when." I wish I remembered his name--maybe I'll do a search later and post it. But the fact is that this cultural values we have come from our experiences, and lock in at about that age. When we talk about something as dramatic as changing commuting habits, it usually takes what this psychologist called a "significant emotional event."

So what "significant emotional event" could qualify to make people re-examine their driving habits? Well, the 9-11 events have made some people stop and think, but not about driving. What other kind of event could influence that? How about the death of a loved one? The study I wrote about in the first posting on this thread documents facts about the 1,156,661 traffic fatalities which have occured since 1975, through the year 2000. If four people were affected by each of these fatalities, that's a total of over 4 million people who have a stake in how we can improve the transportation system in this country. It is also a significant part of our population total.

I think we need to see how these people can be mobilized to improve the situation. MADD did just that; what do you think?

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 12:45 AM
  #59  
Senior Member
 
mechBgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Hmm, for some reason I think of the burning of farm fields, a practice the farmers claim is needed here. Some people don't care... many of those who do care are motivated by the suffering of a friend or loved one who has difficulty breathing when the burning is going on.

For people to "click" with the need to alter a habit which results in unnecessary pollution, such as driving around just to drive around... that's a tough one. They won't come home from a night of cruising Division Street with their booming stereo, find their dad wheezing for breath, and say "that's MY fault! I need to be socially responsible from now on!"

Frankly, I'm not so optomistic that I think my fellow Americans would change their habits if they did know the impact. "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask rather what you can do for your country." How long has it been since we were living up to this ideal, by and large? Who wants to be the first one to step out and change? It's far more likely that the government will just keep trying to minimize the impact of our habits, with stricter emissions controls and such, rather than face the root of the problem head-on. Or am I just crazy?
mechBgon is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 01:06 AM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think it would take something drastic economically suchas a stock market crash,depression,job loss,consumer debt crisis scenario to make people realize they can't afford that third or fourth car anymore.Not that I'm predicting or encouraging such a scenario .
RWTD is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 01:13 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
 
Bigtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
But given that most driven road miles are COMMERCE and SERVICE related, a bike is a poor, poor choice.
Not sure where you got this little gem, can you provide a source? For every big rig/UPS/Fedex truck that I see I can show you lots and lots of cars, many with one occupant in a 12 MPG SUV. And yes some people choose to drive long distances, but many people because of circumstance or necessity do not. Why do you have to have an SUV? Why can't you drive an economy car to work? Obviously there is no simple solution to the problem. People generally do what is easy for them. It's easier to drive to the market than to ride, and I admit I must include myself in this category from time to time. But at least I make an effort, hell I rode the bus for 4 years straight without a car. How many people have even seen the inside of a bus? We need good solid alternatives to reduce auto use, and it needs to be easy. At least in the US it most certainly isn't for most of us.
Bigtime is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 02:20 AM
  #62  
Donating member
 
Richard D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Faversham, Kent, UK
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Folks, we can agree that riding bikes instead of cars is a Good Thing. But it's not a good enough thing to influence the amount of driving people do.

In other words, the benefit of autos far, far exceeds the cost of autos, whether these costs are implicit, explicit, hidden, subsidized or whatever other claims have been made in this interminable thread.

As long as this is true, cycling will remain the primarily recreational activity it is.
Okay, I'm coming from a UK perspective, and I accept that parts of the States are going to be quite different to here, but I disagree that riding bikes cannot be a good enough thing to influence the amount of driving people do.

I'm 31 I've never owned a car, and I still don't see a real need. It's not that I never travel by car - if I need to buy something bulky I might get a taxi, but this is rare. I don't think a total removal of cars from the transport system is likely, but I think a reduction in usage and probably private ownership is a good idea.

Groceries can easily be carried in panniers on a bike - okay Imight need to go slightly more often than if I filled a car boot(trunk), but if I bought a trailer for the bike I probably wouldn't. I live about 11 miles as the crow flies from work, and I get to work either by cycling or using public transport.

Cycling for me is primarily a transportation issue, the fact that I enjoy it as well is a bonus, but I also survived happily without a car prior to taking up cycling.

I'm not saying everyone can live without a car, but the assumption that it is essential to the majority of the population is very dubious - most people use a car for trips that could be made by other means because of laziness or convenience not because of need, and as a society we pay the cost of than convenience.

Richard
__________________
Currently riding an MTB with a split personality - commuting, touring, riding for the sake of riding, on or off road :)
Richard D is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 08:28 AM
  #63  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
This is a really interesting discussion.

Back in the 1920's, my grandparents in Boulder, Colorado lived completely car-free. My mother grew up in this fashion. During the same time period in Chicago Heights, my father was raised by a single mother who also had no car.

Both my grandmothers lived to be very old. My father's mother lived her later years in Lansing, Michigan, where she died on morning after walking home from the grocery store, "with her boots on," which is the way she always said she wanted to die. Both grandmothers had no car.

I suspect that the reason we cannot live car-free like this today is not because we are not as strong as my two grandmothers. I think it's because of the way our communities are purposely designed. You see, the car allows us to shop virtually anywhere in the city, if we choose. So "good-bye" to the "mom-and-pop grocery store," and "hello" to planning which forces the "mice" to go round and round to find the cheese.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 10:13 AM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... I suspect that the reason we cannot live car-free like this today is not because we are not as strong as my two grandmothers. I think it's because of the way our communities are purposely designed. You see, the car allows us to shop virtually anywhere in the city, if we choose...
YES !!! This was my point about edge cities and suburbs.

To suggest that we can rewind to the "good old days" is, in my view, idyllic and, frankly, nonsensical. This thinking is at the root of what many of the posts here are suggesting. If I hold a mistaken view of the thrusts of these posts, please correct me.

We can argue the relative merits of the "good old days" lifestyle; I'd argue that the "good old days" weren't always so danged good. But I sense we're converging on a point of agreement -- that people choose the convenience, luxury, and safety of autos. And that this in turn drives the demand for autos.

Can we then reach agreement on the outcome of these factors: that no amount of preaching about the "nastiness" of autos will turn this around so long as the bike (and other forms of alternatives to cars) are viewed as relatively inconvenient, frugal, and perhaps unsafe?
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 10:16 AM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Chris L
... Is it any wonder there's been such a dramatic rise in child obesity levels?
Chris L, please comment on the relatively recent onset of increased child obesity and the prevelance of the automobile, which has been a factor for decades. I want to make sure I understand your point.
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 10:19 AM
  #66  
Donating member
 
Richard D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Faversham, Kent, UK
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch


Can we then reach agreement on the outcome of these factors: that no amount of preaching about the "nastiness" of autos will turn this around so long as the bike (and other forms of alternatives to cars) are viewed as relatively inconvenient, frugal, and perhaps unsafe?
I think we can, and should, try to influence modern development (do we really want out of town shopping centres etc.) . We can also fight the view of bikes as inconvenient by being seen using them.

Richard
__________________
Currently riding an MTB with a split personality - commuting, touring, riding for the sake of riding, on or off road :)
Richard D is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 10:45 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Richard D
I think we can, and should, try to influence modern development (do we really want out of town shopping centres etc.) . We can also fight the view of bikes as inconvenient by being seen using them.

Richard
Yup. Agreed on both counts. On the first point, my sense is that this is occuring already as witnessed by the prevelance of "town centers" and the like. Planned communities with a centrally located plaza, etc. I think this is driven more by convenience than by any other factor, but that's my take.

On the second point (fighting "inconvienent" view of bikes) I agree in principle and in action. I am a living example that it can be done, but I have special circumstances that allow me to do this. One such circumstance is that I have a stay-at-home mom for a wife who regularly bails me out of inconvenient situations!!
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 11:02 AM
  #68  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
If I hold a mistaken view of the thrusts of these posts, please correct me.
I moved to Australia and lived there for a year as a young teenager. This experience was extrememly valuable to me, because I learned that the whole world was not identical to the small part of it I had grown up in.

Sometimes I think we too often act as if our present lifestyles are the best in the world and that we will never have to change them. That thinking is not what produces innovation and progressive change. If Henry Ford thought like that, he would never have tried to mass produce the automobile.

The purpose in comparing our present American way of life with that of other nations and of our own past is to show that things have not always been this way and that they will not always stay that way.

I don't understand what makes some folks so angry about the suggestion that bicycles can replace cars in some instances. I guess some people find it hard to change or look at things differently.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 11:22 AM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
LBM quotes in italics:

... I learned that the whole world was not identical to the small part of it I had grown up in. Agreed.

Sometimes I think we too often act as if our present lifestyles are the best in the world and that we will never have to change them.... If Henry Ford thought like that, he would never have tried to mass produce the automobile. I am always for change based on reason. I don't think advocating the bicycle as a viable alternative to autos is a reasonable change to promote on the whole. (Citing Ford is interesting.)

The purpose in comparing our present American way of life with that of other nations and of our own past is to show that things have not always been this way and that they will not always stay that way. Of course.

I don't understand what makes some folks so angry about the suggestion that bicycles can replace cars in some instances... Angry? No. Mystified, yes!!! You use "in some instances". Others on this board aren't so tame. Yes, in some instances, bikes can supplant cars. All told, that may decrease auto use by, maybe, 0.001%. Maybe.

The basis of argument stems from the auto itself I think -- just how "bad" is the thing? I don't buy the predominately negative assessment of many posters. I think this is daily borne out by the vast majority of auto drivers (relative to bikers) who apparently agree with me. Are these drivers simply ignorant? Could it possibly be that the car is not as bad as suggested here? Could it be that the value of cars, on the whole, exceeds the value of bicycles? Could it possibly be?
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 11:53 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
mechBgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
As another interesting point to ponder: I saw a reliable report (can't recall where, sorry) indicating that if the whole world produced and distributed their food the way we do in the US, currently-available fossil fuel supplies would be exhausted worldwide in less than 20 years.

Andy, I'm not anti-car, but let's face it... gasoline has to come from somewhere. On that basis alone, discussion about reducing gasoline consumption is valid. Bicycles reduce gasoline consumption.

You also made the point that vehicular emissions are improving wonderfully, which is true other than CO2 production, which is dependent upon how much fuel is used. But many cars are not new or low in emissions, and many new cars that are low in emissions are still not low in fuel consumption per mile.

Using my car as an example: it is an '88 with a V8 engine and 130000 miles, and like other Washington residents, I could easily have spent $150 in bogus emissions repairs to get a waiver allowing me to pollute all I want for two more years at the rate of 15 miles per gallon. I opted to actually fix the problem, which set me back $800, probably almost as much as my car is actually worth. How many people are going to take the responsible route and have their old cars fixed like that? Bicycles do emit some CO2, of course but the discussion about pollution here is valid.

The discussion about taxes varies according to where we all live. Considering the US situation, I did a quick Google search and came up with this article:

article

To quote a few bits:

There is growing awareness in this country that the full cost of using oil for transportation is "subsidized" -- that is, gasoline prices paid by consumers do not reflect the full economic cost to society. The true cost is hidden by myriad direct and indirect public subsidies, which include
  • reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry

  • lower than average sales taxes on gasoline

  • government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists

  • "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution
Tax Benefits
Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991.

Environmental Costs
Oil and motor vehicle use are responsible for enormous hidden environmental costs. Economists term these costs "externalities" because they are not included in the private costs of transportation. Nevertheless, these costs are real and they are borne by society at large. They include the economic costs of air, water, and noise pollution. Reducing the costs of externalities requires government attention.

Delucchi (1995) estimates the total cost in 1991 of environmental externalities to be $54 billion to $232 billion. Human mortality and morbidity due to air pollution accounts for over three-quarters of the total environmental cost and could be as high as $182 billion annually. For the Los Angeles area, Hall et al. (1992) estimates that the annual health-based cost from ozone and particulate exposure alone to be almost $10 billion.
Based on the above, I'd say discussing the taxation aspect is worthwhile too. If these hidden costs were more directly supported by vehicle usage, as is the case with Germany's $3.75/gallon gasoline, then I think we would have a motivator of the type John is referring to.
mechBgon is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 12:08 PM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
mechBgon, sorry, but you could have added a proviso that the article is from ucsusa.org, or the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Now I realize you and many others will disagree with me, but this is a well-known organization that is widely-known to promote left-of-center causes.

Of course, I could post an equally slanted view from a right-of-center group. But I won't do this. I stand by my earlier post.
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 01:52 PM
  #72  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Andy, I hate to devote so much time to arguing over this, but you keep on sticking to your guns on this issue as if you feel it right down to your bones. I don't feel any such loyalty to our current system of automobile transportation.

Abundant examples of the overall waste of this system, it's poor use as a prototype around the world, it's damaging effects on our environment locally and globally, the mounting fatalities and injuries from accidents, have all been mentioned on this forum. Yet none of these things move you. So be it. I suppose you will not be convinced, and that's ok with me.

Personally, I am fully convinced of both the practicality of bicycle transportation (as you also should be) and of the impracticality of automobile overuse, which is what our society is clearly doing.

I say "to-may-to," you say, "to-mah-to," let's call the whole thing off.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 03:54 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by LittleBigMan
... Abundant examples of the overall waste of this system, it's poor use as a prototype around the world, it's damaging effects on our environment locally and globally, the mounting fatalities and injuries from accidents, have all been mentioned on this forum. Yet none of these things move you. So be it. I suppose you will not be convinced, and that's ok with me...
Yes, I suppose we can all agree to disagree. Let's let this interminable thread die.

But! You still seem to have misunderstood my central point. That is (once again): even with all the calamitous by-products of the automobile (as you have stated above ... and for which I AGREE at least in part ), it's still not so bad as to be challenged with a viable alternative. And bicycles, my friend, are not a viable alternative to cars for an overwhelming segment of the population.

So to LBM and other posters on this thread: please continue tilting at the automobile windmill. I wish you luck in this noble cause. I will in turn continue bike-commuting like a mad man (with the support of my wife's van, without which I couldn't b-c nearly as much), proudly representing the perhaps 0.0001% of the overall commuting population that does so.

Off with this thread !!!
Andy Dreisch is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 06:00 PM
  #74  
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,318

Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!

Liked 48 Times in 42 Posts
Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
mechBgon, sorry, but you could have added a proviso that the article is from ucsusa.org, or the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Now I realize you and many others will disagree with me, but this is a well-known organization that is widely-known to promote left-of-center causes.

Ah, yes, the Union of Concerned Scientists! I should have known, the inevitable "we will run out of food/fuel/oil/open space/clean water/clean air/whatever/ in twenty years" is a dead giveaway. Not that it matters---we are gonna get hit by that asteroid in 18 years anyway. That is our latest 'disaster de jour."

I also like their comment that taxing the oil industry at regular rates would bring in an extra 2 billion dollars [though to be honest, BOY does that number seem small???]. How long would that extra money fund the federal government--about 15 minutes?

The only 'concern' these scientists have is over continued federal and state funding for their pet projects, usually some 'lets you and him conserve' type of study that creates another government bureaucracy.

I think we are going down the right track: trying to create more fuel efficient vehicles and technologies. Sure some of the pressure is off because gas prices are not as high as some thought (or HOPE) they would (or SHOULD) be; but still, fuel economy can be a major factor in purchasing a vehicle that you will own for many years. But alas, so is safety: and big SUV's are kind of cushy in a crash, I imagine....

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 07-24-02, 06:07 PM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,183
Liked 76 Times in 54 Posts
Re: Freeways, suburbs, autocentric planning--it is not terribly old, nor is it cast in stone! The first freeway in the US I believe opened in 1933, the Pasadena Freeway in LA. URBAN neighborhoods in the nearest big city to me are nearly twice that old--I used to live in Portland in a house with a hitching ring sunk into the curb in front of it, and of course no garage. People talk about our current community designs as if they were the Pyramids and it just is not so!
Feldman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.