Specific foods in extremely petroleum reliant industries like dairy and eggs, yes (and this was as much due to panic as anything).
Turns out dairy and eggs are cheap sources of excellent protein that poor people rely on (since they typically cannot afford more expensive proteins such as meat).
What I'm getting at is that we can't bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality, we cannot keep the price of gas under $3 forever in the states, the sooner we start ramping it up to something realistic, the less painful this is going to be
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
Local goods actually tend to be less efficient, because farmers drive em around in their trucks, consuming something like 50 times more gas per pound of food than a semi would
Specific foods in extremely petroleum reliant industries like dairy and eggs, yes (and this was as much due to panic as anything).
Turns out dairy and eggs are cheap sources of excellent protein that poor people rely on (since they typically cannot afford more expensive proteins such as meat).
What I'm getting at is that we can't bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality, we cannot keep the price of gas under $3 forever in the states, the sooner we start ramping it up to something realistic, the less painful this is going to be
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
You're not listening to me, there would be no "Artificial hike in gas prices", right now America is going to great pains to keep the price artificially low
It would be better to change that, and then subsidize the poor than to sit and pretend everything's fine until the next oil shock makes any food that isn't grown in your back yard prohibitively expensive
Before you get on me for hating the poor, I make less than $20,000 a year, but I also know that oil isn't going to just do what we tell it for much longer
And just think, if we raised the price of gas to $9 a gallon, i.e. another $6 tax, it would bring in more money than the entire federal income tax.
Somebody; go get elected on a $9 gas platform, stat!
Do you realize how regressive such a tax would be?
Only if it was only on gasoline. Most energy used in this nation is still used in production and other production related industries. Then heating and cooling. Then car transportation.
The price of food is very dependent on the price of gas.
False, unless you're talking locally produced food shipped in someone's pickup - food shipped via semi or diesel ship is absurdly cheap per pound to ship. A semi uses about .031 gallons per pound of goods shipped. Food shipped via freighter is an order of magnitude less than that.
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
Stopping the subsidies wouldn't be an artificial hike. It would be ending an artificial low.
And just think, if we raised the price of gas to $9 a gallon, i.e. another $6 tax, it would bring in more money than the entire federal income tax.
Somebody; go get elected on a $9 gas platform, stat!
Do you realize how regressive such a tax would be?
Only if it was only on gasoline. Most energy used in this nation is still used in production and other production related industries. Then heating and cooling. Then car transportation.
The price of food is very dependent on the price of gas.
False, unless you're talking locally produced food shipped in someone's pickup - food shipped via semi or diesel ship is absurdly cheap per pound to ship. A semi uses about .031 gallons per pound of goods shipped. Food shipped via freighter is an order of magnitude less than that.
I'm not an economist, but I would wager there's a fair amount of panicky men in suits who live in new york to blame for that. Unless you care to actually refute what I said, that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost?
I mean most food is grown using petroleum based fertilizer and whatnot, that adds onto it as well. Illinois started using fertilizer derived from coal during the last price hike, so there are other options.
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
Stopping the subsidies wouldn't be an artificial hike. It would be ending an artificial low.
Semantics. The end result is the same: an artificial hike in gas prices (the fact that they are artificially low right now does not make the hike non-artificial).
A sudden $6 tax on gas would cause economic and societal collapse.
Any move to increase taxes on gas would need to be gradual and preceded by huge infrastructure investments.
This is true as well, and the main reason we need to start ramping up prices (maybe 25 cents a year on the low end, 10 cents a month on the high end till we reach some predetermined number). The less subsidized our gasoline is, the more able to economically weather oil shocks America is.
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
Stopping the subsidies wouldn't be an artificial hike. It would be ending an artificial low.
Semantics. The end result is the same: an artificial hike in gas prices (the fact that they are artificially low right now does not make the hike non-artificial).
A sudden $6 tax on gas would cause economic and societal collapse.
Any move to increase taxes on gas would need to be gradual and preceded by huge infrastructure investments.
Well it's sure a good thing that we're in agreement there, I'm advocating a 50 cent increase, maybe another one next year.
I don't think that would cause the skies to darken and the sea to turn to blood.
Edit: the best route, imo, would be to keep the subsidy intact or only very gradually reduce it for farmers, shipping companies, etc for the time being - but that's less than half our oil usage.
Specific foods in extremely petroleum reliant industries like dairy and eggs, yes (and this was as much due to panic as anything).
What I'm getting at is that we can't bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality, we cannot keep the price of gas under $3 forever in the states, the sooner we start ramping it up to something realistic, the less painful this is going to be
Exactly. The Fundamental Law of Economics states that "anything that cannot last, will end."
We will not be able to continue:
commuting 20+ miles to work.
driving cars so large and inefficient (Camry, Accord) that Toyota and Honda don't even sell them abroad.
having everyone own a car.
living in the country when you're poor (unless you're living on your own farm, obviously).
The only decision we get to make is whether to transition now, on our own terms; or to wait until price changes force the end. One of these is more disruptive than the other, because gas demand is much more elastic in the long run than then short run.
Sorry guys, it's been a great century of cheap gas. But now it's over.
A sudden $6 tax on gas would cause economic and societal collapse.
Any move to increase taxes on gas would need to be gradual and preceded by huge infrastructure investments.
Of course they need to be phased in (like CAFE standards). But the sooner we start, and the clearer the expectation, the less painful the adjustment. Especially for the poor.
I'm not an economist, but I would wager there's a fair amount of panicky men in suits who live in new york to blame for that. Unless you care to actually refute what I said, that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost?
I think the more likely explanation is that there are things you are not taking into account when you determine that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost.
No, we just drive up to parliament and say "terribly sorry, but we need your natural and human resources" and politely ask them to become our subjects.
Specific foods in extremely petroleum reliant industries like dairy and eggs, yes (and this was as much due to panic as anything).
What I'm getting at is that we can't bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality, we cannot keep the price of gas under $3 forever in the states, the sooner we start ramping it up to something realistic, the less painful this is going to be
Exactly. The Fundamental Law of Economics states that "anything that cannot last, will end."
We will not be able to continue:
commuting 20+ miles to work.
driving cars so large and inefficient (Camry, Accord) that Toyota and Honda don't even sell them abroad.
having everyone own a car.
living in the country when you're poor (unless you're living on your own farm, obviously).
The only decision we get to make is whether to transition now, on our own terms; or to wait until price changes force the end. One of these is more disruptive than the other, because gas demand is much more elastic in the long run than then short run.
Sorry guys, it's been a great century of cheap gas. But now it's over.
I don't really agree that we should give up on any of those (except number 2).
We just need to make the investment to develop ways of doing those things sustainably.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'm not an economist, but I would wager there's a fair amount of panicky men in suits who live in new york to blame for that. Unless you care to actually refute what I said, that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost?
I think the more likely explanation is that there are things you are not taking into account when you determine that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost.
I did take into account petroleum used in farming itself, another guess is that they were ramping up prices in anticipation of future increases of oil, since it didn't look like it was going to stop at $4.
I'd like to ask you this, gas is $3 a gallon here, why isn't milk $4 like it was during katrina when gas was the same price? In fact, none of the items that shot up in price when gas hit the $3 mark are inflated anymore. I can tell you that wal-mart made up much the shipping price difference in some areas with new shipping standards allowing more items to fit on a single truck, which is a good thing.
Perhaps we should start shopping locally, seasonally, and cheaply; using mass transit or walking; overall change in consumption and living habits.
I live in an area with a subway system. I'm not going to be affected and having to pay more, and yes local shopping does cost more then the supermarket, isn't going to change my quality of life one iota. However, for the rural working class and poor it's going to be nightmare and screw them over even more. You're taking the view of an affluent urbanite. They don't have mass transit, and mass transit isn't even a practical option in those places. So telling them to just suck it has a rather let them eat cake attitude about it. I'd personally rather not screw them more than they are being screwed.
Local goods actually tend to be less efficient, because farmers drive em around in their trucks, consuming something like 50 times more gas per pound of food than a semi would
But they can just walk and mass transit them!
A sudden $6 tax on gas would cause economic and societal collapse.
Any move to increase taxes on gas would need to be gradual and preceded by huge infrastructure investments.
Exactly. And some of that infrastructure is just not possible in various areas, that happen to have a lot of poor people in them. But those are rural people, and nobody advocating gas increases really gives a crap about dumb ass rednecks.
I'd say one of the best ways to start though would be attacking the trucking industry and converting to rail. Won't solve the transit issue, will help solve the shipping issue.
living in the country when you're poor (unless you're living on your own farm, obviously).
What are you going to do with them then? Are you saying they should just bootstrap themselves out of the country and into the city? This is the same logic as "they shouldn't live in New Orleans if they are poor" when those people got hit.
I'd like to ask you this, gas is $3 a gallon here, why isn't milk $4 like it was during katrina when gas was the same price? In fact, none of the items that shot up in price when gas hit the $3 mark are inflated anymore.
Uh, because it doesn't quite work that way? Supply and demand graphs are never static - you cannot draw direct inferences between the prices of two related goods.
Protein Shakes on
0
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
msnbc is reporting more flow of oil at a major increased pace + 2 worker deaths, but no details.
edit: nm it was a boat captain, not anyone on the site
We just need to make the investment to develop ways of doing those things sustainably.
Cold fusion?
Electric cars combined with lots and lots of nuclear power might work. Driving up gas prices would help encourage such a switch.
Electric/gas hybrids (were you run on battery but switch to gas if it runs out) would do the job I think.
I think the people who are saying we should just stop using cars (or severely limit them) are not appreciating the many social goods that come from cars.
For example, my mom works less than twenty minutes from out house. But my dad and I commute 40 minutes or more. Without multiple cars this would simply not be possible, and thus would limit people's opportunities, and thus social mobility in general.
Katrina was mentioned. Everyone who had a car was able to get up and get out before the storm hit (pretty much). Everyone who didn't was stuck in the city and was screwed.
With cars we keep the population density low, which has benefits to happiness and crime and such.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'd like to ask you this, gas is $3 a gallon here, why isn't milk $4 like it was during katrina when gas was the same price? In fact, none of the items that shot up in price when gas hit the $3 mark are inflated anymore.
Uh, because it doesn't quite work that way? Supply and demand graphs are never static - you cannot draw direct inferences between the prices of two related goods.
So you're admitting the increase in food prices wasn't entirely because of the increase in gas prices?
Electric/gas hybrids (were you run on battery but switch to gas if it runs out) would do the job I think.
Totally in agreement, I think (for the time being anyway) this is the best option we have. You use no gas to just go grab some milk, but you can still take long trips if you need to
I'd like to ask you this, gas is $3 a gallon here, why isn't milk $4 like it was during katrina when gas was the same price? In fact, none of the items that shot up in price when gas hit the $3 mark are inflated anymore.
Uh, because it doesn't quite work that way? Supply and demand graphs are never static - you cannot draw direct inferences between the prices of two related goods.
So you're admitting the increase in food prices wasn't entirely because of the increase in gas prices?
No, what I mean is that you can't say shit like "oh, milk was X dollars when gas was Y dollars several years ago, so now that gas is again Y dollars, why is milk X dollars again?"
For example, my mom works less than twenty minutes from out house. But my dad and I commute 40 minutes or more. Without multiple cars this would simply not be possible, and thus would limit people's opportunities, and thus social mobility in general.
God said, Let us make a decent public transportation system.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
And God saw that people still bought shitloads of cars in spite of the availability of said public transportation.
And God decided not to raise prices to encourage people to use the good public transportation because he is a pussy.
Edit: I can't find anything on actual car use.
For example, my mom works less than twenty minutes from out house. But my dad and I commute 40 minutes or more. Without multiple cars this would simply not be possible, and thus would limit people's opportunities, and thus social mobility in general.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
If the public transportation was decent, there would be one between the random sub-division and random area close to the office building.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
If the public transportation was decent, there would be one between the random sub-division and random area close to the office building.
Close? It's seriously just one maybe two buildings just by themselves on the side of the highway. You would need a stop just for it.
Multiply that by the hundreds of similar places.
It's cost prohibitive.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
If the public transportation was decent, there would be one between the random sub-division and random area close to the office building.
Again that's not going to work for rural areas. And "low population density is evil", well fine, you hate rural areas, they are evil. But really, that isn't a solution. There really is no solution to this and it is a problem. We don't have the money, or probably even the ability to create and implement a functional public transportation system that covers the needs of people outside of major metropolitan centers.
"low population density sucks, poor people shouldn't live in the country" is simply saying "I gots mine, bootstrap your poor asses into the city"
No, we just drive up to parliament and say "terribly sorry, but we need your natural and human resources" and politely ask them to become our subjects.
Problem solved.
Indeed, it is the Canadians one weakness.... manners.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
If the public transportation was decent, there would be one between the random sub-division and random area close to the office building.
Close? It's seriously just one maybe two buildings just by themselves on the side of the highway. You would need a stop just for it.
Multiply that by the hundreds of similar places.
It's cost prohibitive.
You don't need any kind of formal stop. Just let drivers stop to pick people up, and common gathering areas are likely to come about on their own outside subdivisions.
If there were a few buses running down one of the nearby roads, they could potentially pick up thousands of people at the entrance to subdivisions without going in and take them to any of the large cities on the way (to be later picked up by other bus systems).
I'd expect Foster Farms to be shut down if it could be shown Foster Farms was doing something wrong, not just because they're in the same industry.
Considering that the companies have had to do shit to follow the regulations under the Bush administration, Foster Farms could have superAIDS makers and still be doing nothing technically wrong in this analogy. Because the issues giving rise to this problem are industry wide, I don't see the problem with a blanket ban until it can actually be sorted out. It isn't different from a quarantine.
Are they industry wide? If so, that's the kind of thing I'd expect would be in the government's report, rather than... nothing.
If the equipment is unsound, and BOPs don't work, then all the 3600+ rigs in the Gulf need to be shut down, not just the 33 currently affected.
If cars without seatbelts are unsafe, then every car on the road needs to be upgraded. Not just the new ones.
Isn't that what I said? If the equipment is fundamentally flawed, then every rig in operation needs to be moratorium'd, not just the 33 exploratory floating rigs that were shut down.
If the government's position is that these 33 rigs are unsafe, but the other 3600+ are safe, then show the court some evidence regarding these 33.
If the government's position is that offshore drilling is fundamentally unsafe, then only shutting down 33 rigs while allowing 3600+ more (in the Gulf alone, let alone in all US waters) to continue to operate is negligent at best, and they should all be shut down.
Otherwise the moratorium makes no sense, and of course a judge is going to shit all over it (even though the usage of a preliminary injunction is also problematic). It's like no cars having seatbelts, so the government shuts down production of Camrys while still allowing no-seatbelt Accords and F150s to come rolling off the line.
[QUOTE=HamHamJ;15434810So, how exactly are you going to do this?
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?[/QUOTE]
PS. This ignores the idea that maybe we should be placing the places where we work in good locations, rather than congregating all our workplaces in a single area of the city to be dubbed "downtown" or in random places where there are low property taxes to be dubbed "the boondocks" regardless of accessibility. Public transportation works best when urban planning is done AROUND it, not when it's added on afterward.
Could it be that they dont want 3600+ rigs to suddenly test their BOPs if thats what they are worried about being the point of failure, and instead just want to stop the 33 rigs before they become completely reliant on their BOPs?
We just need to make the investment to develop ways of doing those things sustainably.
Cold fusion?
Electric cars combined with lots and lots of nuclear power might work. Driving up gas prices would help encourage such a switch.
Why don't we take the cash that we're currently spending on keeping gasoline artificially low and start over the next say 10-15 years start appropriating chunks of it towards high efficiency cars/diesels with good mpg/hybrids/electric and tax write offs for people who buy month long/year long passes for local mass transit?
(Side question: Is there any Diesel-Electric hybrid cars out there? If so, why aren't there more?)
Sooner or later we're going to have to invest in a post WWII era amount of infrastructure building for new rail and likely repairs to old lines (let alone our major interstates and bridges), which is why I wouldn't include it in the other chunks of funding since its going to need its own huge piece.
We currently incentivize bad behavior, but instead of doing a complete 180 why not just start a slide to better behavior (enabled by technology thats available today) and set us up for the next transition 10-15 years down the line.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Why the coefficients for Greece, Portugal and Austria have low rates of car ownership in rural areas even when adjusting for income.
The estimates
indicate that for the first set of countries (Denmark, Belgium, France and
Ireland) living in a rural area or village has a substantial positive effect on car
availability, while the opposite is the case in the second set of countries
(Greece, Portugal and Austria). In addition, living in a highly densely
populated area reduces car availability in the first set of countries, but has no
effect in the second set. Conversely, living in a low density area reduces car
availability in the second set of countries, but has no effect in the first set.
Why the coefficients for Greece, Portugal and Austria are contrary to
expectations of the effects of residential location, even after controlling for
income differences, requires further investigation.
Posts
Perhaps we should start shopping locally, seasonally, and cheaply; using mass transit or walking; overall change in consumption and living habits.
Turns out dairy and eggs are cheap sources of excellent protein that poor people rely on (since they typically cannot afford more expensive proteins such as meat).
I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating for an artificial hike in gas prices? How is a sudden increase in gas prices going to be any less painful than a gradual one?
You're not listening to me, there would be no "Artificial hike in gas prices", right now America is going to great pains to keep the price artificially low
It would be better to change that, and then subsidize the poor than to sit and pretend everything's fine until the next oil shock makes any food that isn't grown in your back yard prohibitively expensive
Before you get on me for hating the poor, I make less than $20,000 a year, but I also know that oil isn't going to just do what we tell it for much longer
Then are you saying that when food prices go up the same time as the gas/oil, that is unrelated?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/cpi-ipc/cpi-ipc-eng.htm
I'm not an economist, but I would wager there's a fair amount of panicky men in suits who live in new york to blame for that. Unless you care to actually refute what I said, that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost?
I mean most food is grown using petroleum based fertilizer and whatnot, that adds onto it as well. Illinois started using fertilizer derived from coal during the last price hike, so there are other options.
Any move to increase taxes on gas would need to be gradual and preceded by huge infrastructure investments.
Semantics. The end result is the same: an artificial hike in gas prices (the fact that they are artificially low right now does not make the hike non-artificial).
Also this:
This is true as well, and the main reason we need to start ramping up prices (maybe 25 cents a year on the low end, 10 cents a month on the high end till we reach some predetermined number). The less subsidized our gasoline is, the more able to economically weather oil shocks America is.
Well it's sure a good thing that we're in agreement there, I'm advocating a 50 cent increase, maybe another one next year.
I don't think that would cause the skies to darken and the sea to turn to blood.
Edit: the best route, imo, would be to keep the subsidy intact or only very gradually reduce it for farmers, shipping companies, etc for the time being - but that's less than half our oil usage.
Exactly. The Fundamental Law of Economics states that "anything that cannot last, will end."
We will not be able to continue:
The only decision we get to make is whether to transition now, on our own terms; or to wait until price changes force the end. One of these is more disruptive than the other, because gas demand is much more elastic in the long run than then short run.
Sorry guys, it's been a great century of cheap gas. But now it's over.
Of course they need to be phased in (like CAFE standards). But the sooner we start, and the clearer the expectation, the less painful the adjustment. Especially for the poor.
with our recent track record, we'd lose the war
lose a war to canada
no one could live with the shame
I think the more likely explanation is that there are things you are not taking into account when you determine that shipping food is a small portion of the total cost.
Hey. The attempted invasion of Canada in the Revolutionary War didn't involve us giving it our all. The War of 1812 was a tie.
Problem solved.
I don't really agree that we should give up on any of those (except number 2).
We just need to make the investment to develop ways of doing those things sustainably.
Electric cars combined with lots and lots of nuclear power might work. Driving up gas prices would help encourage such a switch.
I did take into account petroleum used in farming itself, another guess is that they were ramping up prices in anticipation of future increases of oil, since it didn't look like it was going to stop at $4.
I'd like to ask you this, gas is $3 a gallon here, why isn't milk $4 like it was during katrina when gas was the same price? In fact, none of the items that shot up in price when gas hit the $3 mark are inflated anymore. I can tell you that wal-mart made up much the shipping price difference in some areas with new shipping standards allowing more items to fit on a single truck, which is a good thing.
I live in an area with a subway system. I'm not going to be affected and having to pay more, and yes local shopping does cost more then the supermarket, isn't going to change my quality of life one iota. However, for the rural working class and poor it's going to be nightmare and screw them over even more. You're taking the view of an affluent urbanite. They don't have mass transit, and mass transit isn't even a practical option in those places. So telling them to just suck it has a rather let them eat cake attitude about it. I'd personally rather not screw them more than they are being screwed.
But they can just walk and mass transit them!
Exactly. And some of that infrastructure is just not possible in various areas, that happen to have a lot of poor people in them. But those are rural people, and nobody advocating gas increases really gives a crap about dumb ass rednecks.
I'd say one of the best ways to start though would be attacking the trucking industry and converting to rail. Won't solve the transit issue, will help solve the shipping issue.
What are you going to do with them then? Are you saying they should just bootstrap themselves out of the country and into the city?
Uh, because it doesn't quite work that way? Supply and demand graphs are never static - you cannot draw direct inferences between the prices of two related goods.
edit: nm it was a boat captain, not anyone on the site
Electric/gas hybrids (were you run on battery but switch to gas if it runs out) would do the job I think.
I think the people who are saying we should just stop using cars (or severely limit them) are not appreciating the many social goods that come from cars.
For example, my mom works less than twenty minutes from out house. But my dad and I commute 40 minutes or more. Without multiple cars this would simply not be possible, and thus would limit people's opportunities, and thus social mobility in general.
Katrina was mentioned. Everyone who had a car was able to get up and get out before the storm hit (pretty much). Everyone who didn't was stuck in the city and was screwed.
With cars we keep the population density low, which has benefits to happiness and crime and such.
So you're admitting the increase in food prices wasn't entirely because of the increase in gas prices?
Totally in agreement, I think (for the time being anyway) this is the best option we have. You use no gas to just go grab some milk, but you can still take long trips if you need to
No, what I mean is that you can't say shit like "oh, milk was X dollars when gas was Y dollars several years ago, so now that gas is again Y dollars, why is milk X dollars again?"
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
And God saw that people still bought shitloads of cars in spite of the availability of said public transportation.
And God decided not to raise prices to encourage people to use the good public transportation because he is a pussy.
Edit: I can't find anything on actual car use.
Well excuse me for wanting a house with more than three rooms.
So, how exactly are you going to do this?
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?
Close? It's seriously just one maybe two buildings just by themselves on the side of the highway. You would need a stop just for it.
Multiply that by the hundreds of similar places.
It's cost prohibitive.
Again that's not going to work for rural areas. And "low population density is evil", well fine, you hate rural areas, they are evil. But really, that isn't a solution. There really is no solution to this and it is a problem. We don't have the money, or probably even the ability to create and implement a functional public transportation system that covers the needs of people outside of major metropolitan centers.
"low population density sucks, poor people shouldn't live in the country" is simply saying "I gots mine, bootstrap your poor asses into the city"
Indeed, it is the Canadians one weakness.... manners.
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=250
MWO: Adamski
You don't need any kind of formal stop. Just let drivers stop to pick people up, and common gathering areas are likely to come about on their own outside subdivisions.
If there were a few buses running down one of the nearby roads, they could potentially pick up thousands of people at the entrance to subdivisions without going in and take them to any of the large cities on the way (to be later picked up by other bus systems).
Isn't that what I said? If the equipment is fundamentally flawed, then every rig in operation needs to be moratorium'd, not just the 33 exploratory floating rigs that were shut down.
If the government's position is that these 33 rigs are unsafe, but the other 3600+ are safe, then show the court some evidence regarding these 33.
If the government's position is that offshore drilling is fundamentally unsafe, then only shutting down 33 rigs while allowing 3600+ more (in the Gulf alone, let alone in all US waters) to continue to operate is negligent at best, and they should all be shut down.
Otherwise the moratorium makes no sense, and of course a judge is going to shit all over it (even though the usage of a preliminary injunction is also problematic). It's like no cars having seatbelts, so the government shuts down production of Camrys while still allowing no-seatbelt Accords and F150s to come rolling off the line.
Is there going to be a bus line between our random sub-division and random-office-building-by-the-side-of-the-interstate? Between our sub-division and across state lines to Stennis Space Center?[/QUOTE]
PS. This ignores the idea that maybe we should be placing the places where we work in good locations, rather than congregating all our workplaces in a single area of the city to be dubbed "downtown" or in random places where there are low property taxes to be dubbed "the boondocks" regardless of accessibility. Public transportation works best when urban planning is done AROUND it, not when it's added on afterward.
MWO: Adamski
Why don't we take the cash that we're currently spending on keeping gasoline artificially low and start over the next say 10-15 years start appropriating chunks of it towards high efficiency cars/diesels with good mpg/hybrids/electric and tax write offs for people who buy month long/year long passes for local mass transit?
(Side question: Is there any Diesel-Electric hybrid cars out there? If so, why aren't there more?)
Sooner or later we're going to have to invest in a post WWII era amount of infrastructure building for new rail and likely repairs to old lines (let alone our major interstates and bridges), which is why I wouldn't include it in the other chunks of funding since its going to need its own huge piece.
We currently incentivize bad behavior, but instead of doing a complete 180 why not just start a slide to better behavior (enabled by technology thats available today) and set us up for the next transition 10-15 years down the line.
Come Overwatch with meeeee