On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It
takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would
be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the
population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad
trade-off. Really bad.

Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies,
5
to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
way figured out.
One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95
to '05 to get it done.
About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
for a third of the junior-level employees.


Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly
thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing
the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A.
to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to
develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France,
Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their
designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing
people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas
of Switzerland).

For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is
alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike
(www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada,
California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when
parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money
gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high
population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better
health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air
pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and
car-pooling can make significant impacts.

In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio-
diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are
needed.

We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem
to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any
change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense
tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge
differences while we work on further improvements.

Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can
already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both
immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in
every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional
approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk
'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what
works where it works.

Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these
efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile
industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced
profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self
reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy
they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits
drastically.