Readers’ Responses to Our Question (54)

hello world
hello world http://helloworld.com hello world
[url=http://helloworld.com ]hello world[/url]

hello world
hello world http://helloworld.com hello world
[url=http://helloworld.com ]hello world[/url]

reducent bodkin furfuramide unlicentiated hematocrit unamenable fussiness woodyard
Picture Of A Pine Tree
http://www2.qvnpvz.net/1id
Outrigger Beach Resort
http://www4.uejtaxylj.net/cu
Playstation Games For Sale
http://www7.qfoifxz.net/em
Rachel Carson Biography
http://www2.qvnpvz.net/nf
Auto Body Repair Career Resources
http://www5.qvnpvz.net/12k
Ellen Degeneres Here And Now
http://www4.qfoifxz.net/1d5
Accessories For 2005 Pontiac G6 Gt
http://www1.uejtaxylj.net/j2
Assist To Sell Realty
http://www2.qfoifxz.net/yz
Techno Radio Station
http://www2.qvnpvz.net/y1
Lucadia Warren Buffett
http://www9.uejtaxylj.net/lr

vomicine guide typhlosis recitative howardite shown scirenga taconite
The Perfect Stool Company
http://www.redseacollege.com/

Nice.
Keep up the good work.

Nothing would.

Not even people dying in the streets like flies.

Look for the direct buy car here :
http://inyourcar.info/direct_buy_car/index.html

Nothing would.

Not even people dying in the streets like flies.

Look for the direct buy car here :
http://inyourcar.info/direct_buy_car/index.html

ban over a million cars from Beijing's streets? Why?
I don't understand it.
Look for direct buy car here - http://inyourcar.info/direct_buy_car/index.html

thanx

Hi !

viagra online

throatwort ferrarese bootlegging glycolipide clangor malacopod forth kinghead
The American Muslim Tam
http://www.angelfire.com/poylcy/h43.html

Hi !

viagra online

throatwort ferrarese bootlegging glycolipide clangor malacopod forth kinghead
Quinton Rampage Jackson
http://www.angelfire.com/umrmznqn/906.html

Great site!821b17df41840818e759d074b99ff325

Hello nice blog! !!
pen
It's my new page.about pens.

Thanks for the special work and information! notem6715

Hello! Very interesting and professional site. notem6715

Hello to all, its my new pages about cloth
cloth diaper
You can buy here 24\7.

I don't use any form of mass transit because it takes so much longer. Save me time, and I will drive less. Meanwhile, I'll drive my hyrbid car.

xweuyz ocvhufn zevujqbmp orhxndpec prbutldi sftrnwlh fjqmvi [URL]http://www.caulfid.toubevakq.com[/URL] oaysivm rklhswme

xweuyz ocvhufn zevujqbmp orhxndpec prbutldi sftrnwlh fjqmvi [URL]http://www.caulfid.toubevakq.com[/URL] oaysivm rklhswme

qrtmfep zlvwecbyg tdcmlfqe ptareckb ubxsvt nhygfep fjla [URL=http://www.tkunbeafq.akfqpt.com]jgqweoiv qjyabi[/URL]

dmwcqs mnhe armgs gneo vomkqz kstrulep dclpxyfzb dxuynz romiybsek

dmwcqs mnhe armgs gneo vomkqz kstrulep dclpxyfzb dxuynz romiybsek

dmwcqs mnhe armgs gneo vomkqz kstrulep dclpxyfzb dxuynz romiybsek

dmwcqs mnhe armgs gneo vomkqz kstrulep dclpxyfzb dxuynz romiybsek

qxaitldok neqbpig uoyc ohsgxm zxhrq fmgeql usibqvang http://www.amuhvs.hpnbrj.com

qxaitldok neqbpig uoyc ohsgxm zxhrq fmgeql usibqvang http://www.amuhvs.hpnbrj.com

qxaitldok neqbpig uoyc ohsgxm zxhrq fmgeql usibqvang http://www.amuhvs.hpnbrj.com

qvrx rcwde tcxyqkepi zaystheg ctvle qajvkore yodeac

qvrx rcwde tcxyqkepi zaystheg ctvle qajvkore yodeac

Telecommuting. It is the immediate/partial solution to an immediate problem. Today's technology is already there to enable us. All it takes is a change in mentality.

Finding even a partial solution to getting people to drive less will take a multi-faceted approach over a number of years. I live in a moderately sized metropolitan area of about 1 million including several growing urban counties that house about 3/4 of that number. We have not yet reached a critical mass of traffic where we experience daily traffic gridlock, but it is coming as our area continues to grow. We need to raise the gas tax by 0.50 to a $1.00 per gallon to encourage more frugality in how we drive and in what we drive, to help fund design and development of more efficient transportation systems such as light rail and bus systems that really work and help get us off of imported oil. Maybe we could call it a "patriot tax" or a "national security tax" since a portion of every dollar we spend for oil from the Middle East is no doubt helping to fund terrorism. The federal government needs to take the lead in addressing this, but I am not optimistic for the near term.

I would expect that there is a 10 year window for the USA to re-organize her economy in such way that transportation does not take so large a % of energy consumption.

Without doubt [sans the White House Idiot does percipitate WWIII] this will involve taking the approximately 1 trillion dollar defence [and related] budget and tranforming most of it into infrastructure in a similar vein as it was done after WWII.

This transformation of the economy is not only compelled by the approaching/past PEAK OIL, but also due to the limited amount of resources the EARTH CAN PROVIDE for approx 8 billion inhabitants. Nor does this need for tranformation of transport energy due to the almost certain demands of GLOBAL WARMING [a.k.a. CO2/Methane production]

Were the USA electorate manage to elect in 2008 another warmonger, such as Mrs. Clinton, the USA ecomomy will collapse, due to debt, military spending and lack of manufacturing base. The present BOEING, GM, Ford, Grunman, Lockheed, etc corportions' longevity is close to nil under any set of circumstances by 2050 for there will not be the energy supply to run the products of these corporations nor the rare metals needed for all the technologies involved in these products.

So in conclusion, it is irrevelant what the price of oil/gas is in the short term, in 20 years the economy will be completely different with lot lower overall standard of living, where such standards include all the goodies available due to CHEAP TRNASPORT [SEA, Air, or ground]. Please analyse your weekly grocery purchases/resource use to see how greatly you depend on cheap tranport [especially if you live in a metropolis, which is totally dependent on truck fleets carrying food, on pumps pumping high pressure water to apartments, to sewage/garbage systems eating energy for infrastructure and disposal etc,

Only neocon idiots in the Bush league could presume that life will be the same in 10 years, that the economy can constantly grow, that there is technological solution to energy needs, and that natural resources are endless.

Otherwise good luck to all, I am too old to live that far in the future, though I regret the situation we leave our children and grandchildren.

It never ceases to amaze me that there is such lack of imagination on this subject. As some have pointed out the problem is pollution. Pollution is from fossil fuels. So phase out fossil fuels and you phase out your problems. Then the next complaint is that we would cease to function without fossil fuels. Nonsense. There are so many ways to harvest energy and so many ways to efficiently use it for the purpose of living. But like any destination we need to know where we are going, how we are going to get there and allow time to get there.
Our future will have very little fossil fuels and very efficient use of energy. It will likely be a broad assortment of decentralized technologies. Batteries and ultracapacitors, and solar and wind and wave and geothermal and biofuels. Maybe some hydrogen and some nuclear. We will be driving electric vehicles charged by solar cells all connected to a super redundant grid. We may decide to work at home more and scale back our consumption. We may choose to be high tech Amish and rediscover the joys of each other. I challenge anyone to prove that we cannot find solutions. Humanity has done far more for worse reasons.

Beijing’s plans are not as absurd as they sound to be. However, putting anything like this into practice and in such a short period of time is in fact intriguing. Because, the concerned Chinese officials should have thought about inevitable traffic concerns during 2008 Olympics much before – almost 8 years ago - and should not have decided upon it now as an afterthought.

For successful implementation of their traffic regulation plan, they should have remodeled their transportation system after Manhattan’s model - building a wide network of subways, train-lines and bus-routes. This could have ensured a drastic decrease in dependency on one’s own vehicle for transit – especially to work – and would have spared the Olympics’ tourists all the imminent traffic woes, and would have also kept air ‘clean’(!). (Manhattan’s usage of public transport is perhaps the maximum in the world – less than 25% of Manhattanites own a private car.)

It would be interesting to hear from China as to what and how exactly they plan to take care of ‘mass transit’ needs of millions of Beijing residents during 2008 Olympics.

Nowadays, I catch the train when I go to the City. It is such a relaxing experience. I can alight in the middle of town. I do not have to park a long way from where I want to be. I save money on petrol, parking fees, wear and tear and I am more relaxed.

In summer I walk to the shops when I only need to buy a few items that are not too heavy. Evey morning I leave home for breakfast and coffee. Unfortunately I am lazy and that makes me overweight.

I drive an Odyssey. It has 4 cylinders and a 2.4 litre engine. I figure I should be responsible and buy a smaller car. I do not need an excessive amount of space and there is no reason why I should not help to minimise the damage that I cause to the environment.

In addition, I have planted hundreds of trees.

Until people understand how diverse and enormous our environmental problems are they will not act to clean up this planet. I believe that because politicians lack a sense of direction and strategy that the public have not been marshalled. The public will play their part once they get leadership and they know that they are working with everyone else and not against them.

So it is settled then: only sky-rocketing oil prices will make the citizens of the USA drive less.

On a completely unrelated matter, there is a must-read on CiF from The Guardian:

"How the neoliberals stitched up the wealth of nations for themselves"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2157197,00.html

And another one:

"The threat of a threat"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/naomi_wolf/2007/08/the_threat_of_a_threat.html

Which raises a possibility that MikeB had already mentioned: that the Cheney administration might provoke a nuclear war with Iran to not hold elections in 2008 in the USA.

So it is settled then: only sky-rocketing oil prices will make the citizens of the USA drive less.

On a completely unrelated matter, there is a must-read on CiF from The Guardian:

"How the neoliberals stitched up the wealth of nations for themselves"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2157197,00.html

And another one:

"The threat of a threat"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/naomi_wolf/2007/08/the_threat_of_a_threat.html

Which raises a possibility that MikeB had already mentioned: that the Cheney administration might provoke a nuclear war with Iran to not hold elections in 2008 in the USA.

A miracle.

I would be VERY VERY happy to drive less if there were more and SAFER bike lanes/paths! All the bike "lanes" in my area are in the shoulder of the road, which seems very very dangerous to me. I dont' want to ride right next to the cars (and the occasional hostile or inconsiderate or careless driver) and their fumes! The bike paths are also inconsistent; they will run for a while and then stop. We need a true network. Bike paths should parallel EVERY road we build and then some. Also, we should encourage more of the quick bike-rental setups of some of our European neighbors: bike rental and drop-off kiosks at major intersections, with hourly rentals and quick credit-card access, maybe with an incentive of the first 30 minutes free!

MikeB

As long as its more convenient to drive, we'll continue to drive. Mass transit works where mass transit provides a more convenient way to get from A to B than driving, for example, Manhattan. Half the vehicles in Manhattan are cabs. Driving is a nightmare. Taking the subway is relatively cheap and convenient (people walk a great deal in Manhattan as well).

So you are right, gas prices are not high enough to make traveling by bus worthwhile to most Americans...and it will be awhile before we reach that point in Boise.

MikeB

As long as its more convenient to drive, we'll continue to drive. Mass transit works where mass transit provides a more convenient way to get from A to B than driving, for example, Manhattan. Half the vehicles in Manhattan are cabs. Driving is a nightmare. Taking the subway is relatively cheap and convenient (people walk a great deal in Manhattan as well).

So you are right, gas prices are not high enough to make traveling by bus worthwhile to most Americans...and it will be awhile before we reach that point in Boise.

Tom Wonacott: "Higher gas prices will make people drive less..."

This hasn't proven to be the case thus far simply because we do not have the mass transit infrastructure to replace the private automobile. At present, public employee unions and municipalities and politcian's who cater to public employees for votes have a stranglehold on mass transportation. It is inefficient, over priced, and poorly run as a direct consequence.

The rising cost of oil,space for parking,public transporting facilities and personal road safety .who cares for environmental pollution? The chinese decisionis not for air purification but showing business boom and chinese prosperity . At least it is going to be next superpower of the world.

PG

Higher gas prices will make people drive less, or at least more efficiently. I prefer to let supply and demand control gas prices as opposed to applying a gas tax to raise prices to reduce our driving.

Are Americans going to reduce their driving? The answer to that question is not likely (short of very high gas prices), so, realistically, we need to invest in technology that reduces pollutants and, at the same time, reduces our dependence on oil imports. In other words, technology driven by supply and demand, not artificially inflated gas prices, should provide the answer to the reduction of gasoline in our society.

New technology such as hydrogen fuel cars need to be developed and hybrids should be utilized to reduce the use of gasoline. The US also needs to increase fuel efficiency standards on vehicles (although this just provides the counter to high gas prices and therefore increases our driving).

The recent increase in gas prices sent a shock wave through our economy so it’s a matter of time before prices reach the point where our driving habits change (which no one wants) or science provides an alternative to gasoline.

Ideally to make people drive less we would want to bring everything for which people drive closer to people. Create decent communities. Enable people to work from home as much as possible. Put everything to everyone within bicycle or even walking range. People will always want to expand, explore, but if the methods of expansion are detrimental everything has to be brought close and explorations other than detrimental expansion encouraged. But of course this is idealistic so we had better embrace nuclear technology, electricity, etc.--clean methods--as much as possible. Expand cleanly or contract and try to bring as much close as possible without dirtiness...and perhaps in contracting (after various cycles of expansion and contraction) we will hit on clean expansion clean to the stars.

Things were much better just few years before in Pakistan when the easy bank financing for cars were not available.

When all banks find a gold mine in what they call as micro financing the fleet of the cars start rolling on the streets. The result is heavy pollusion, traffic jams and road accidents.

The end result is that the fuel bill is increasing, work start slowing down and the people are suffering more.

In Karachi where I live I prefer to use a taxi instead travelling my own car. I think it is much faster and convinient.

Who are benefitting. Those multi national auto manufactrers who knows that the saturation point is reached in US, Europe and Gulf countries of automobile demands now creating new markets in emerging economies. or those multi national high way contractors whose construction equipment start rusting reaching to 3rd world countries to provide assistance for construction of new highways.

who is loosing. the people who are now squuezed in a financing arrangement. they are now moving much slow. although the comfort laval is much higher but stuck up hours in a traffic jam is just horrible.

what to do. simply mass transit is the correct solution. the fast trains working on electrical systems which is produced far away and preferebly by a renewable technology is the correct medicine to overcome all three constraints namely fuel prices, air pollution and fast and economical transit.

Although by scraping old automobiles and strict reinforcement of safety and fitness standars some quick results can be obtained but regretfully in the local environments the success of this solution is doubtful

PG,
"What would it take to get people where you live to drive less?"

Why on earth should people have to drive less? This question seems to insinuate that there is a problem with driving. There is nothing inherently bad with the act of driving or with a society that drives a lot. Are there issues that need to be dealt with? Perhaps. From an environmental point of view, it would probably be better to use cleaner running cars. From a national interest perspective, it would be great to have alternative fuel cars so as not to be as dependent on oil. Both of those are technologically feasible. So, to answer your question, I think that it would take people believing, for some reason, that driving is just plain wrong. I just can't imagine what that reason would be.

Ah, America and it's love of the automobile. Nothing short of boosting gas prices over $5 a gallon will have much effect on the number of miles driven every year. We're a society of suburbs and mini vans. For the most part with the exception of major cities public transportation is limited, inefficient or just plain non-existant.

I don't really believe much can be done to reduce the miles driven in America any significant amount. Hence, the question really ought to center around alternative energy sources for cars like electric. If we can't reduce the miles we drive at least we can limit the pollution.

MikeB,

I looked into taking the train from Washington, DC to San Fransico back in December. When I did my homework on this trip I threw up my hands in frustation over the time it took and the cost and muttered something about no wonder the trains need Congressional subsidies. Who would want to put themselves thhrough the expense or aggravation of taking the train across country? Now, I looked into the trains because I hate to fly today. Between the airlines being undependable and having zero service you also have to put up with a security system that is just plain stupid, degrading and time consuming.

One aspect of the modern economy often missed or dismissed by businesses and the government is that employees should be evaluated on the amount of work done rather than how much time they spend in the office. Telecommuting should be encouraged as long as we can measure the work done. All too often we see managers that value busy-looking workers over the job they have done. If people can work from home more, that will make a serious dent on amount of driving without massive investment. All we have to do is change our mentality to sync up with the time.

Driving will always be more convenient to public transportation. As long as driving is comparably cheap, people will drive. It does take actions from the government to set the rules on driving which apply to everybody, such as gasoline taxes, more toll roads, more car taxes. Use the money from those taxes to build better public transportation.

If you want people to drive less, provide a decent alternative. That means a national mass transit system; not the chaotic grab bag of costly public works projects that defines mass transit in this country, but a national mass transit system. In my little town (Eugene, Oregon) bus drivers are public employees and make $80,000 annuallly plus public employee retirement benefits, full medical and dental benefits. As I understand it, it is even a lot more expensive in other towns. In Europe, which we need to emulate, public employees make about what their private sector counterparts make and have the same benefits, freeing up money to spend on actual mass transit infrastructure.

My family lived in Sweden for a lengthy period of time and we took the train and buses and trams everywhere. The trains were especially nice. The seats were arranged in cubicals, surrounding a central low table. Strangers would visit, whole families would throw improvised parties. It was fun. The trains ran on time and were *fast*. It took 2-1/2 hours to go from Gothenberg to Stockholm, a distance of about 275 miles. The cost of a ticket is about $54. I can only contrast this with Amtrack. My wife recently took Amtrack from Eugene to Seattle, about 275 miles, to visit her mother. The seats were arranged like seats on an airplane. There was no leg room, it was uncomfortable. The wait to buy a cup of coffee was 90 minutes as there was only one "snack bar" and that was manned by a single person....and it opened an hour late! The cost was $78, one way, and the trip took 8 hours! (and that was the "fast" train).

If we made it a national priority, if we built the infrastructure to support fast, clean electric trains, we could emulate Europe and THAT would get people out of their cars.

Nothing would.

Not even people dying in the streets like flies.

Survivors would then choose to wear a gas mask and carry an oxygen tank around...

People would rather die than drive less.

This is a lost cause.

- higher oil prices
- more, better and cheaper public transportation, incl. parking lots close to stations
- more and safer cycling routes
- forbidden supermarkets (like them having less privileges)
- time (let's say 10 years ?)

Thermonuclear war.