Maybe gas is not expensive enough...

CheapyD

CheapyD

Head Cheap Ass
Staff member
Feedback
14 (100%)
I was watching Bill Mahr the other night and he made a very good point.
Perhaps gasoline is too cheap in the US. In most other parts of the world, gasoline is 2x as expensive, which has forced their societies to use smaller, more energy effecient automobiles.

Since we have a huge deficit, maybe now would be a good time for our government to starting taxing gasoline. After all, look at all the trouble its gotten us into in.



Bush seeks Saudi help on oil prices
CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush intends to ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to boost his country's oil production in hopes of driving down soaring oil and U.S. gas prices, senior administration officials said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/bush.saudi/

vert.bush.abdullah.ap..jpg

"Don't worry, we won't bring democracy to your country as long as you keep it flowing."
 
I've heard many times that we've already developed an engine that's MUCH more efficient than the ones we have now, but the gas companies don't want it released. Can anybody else back this up?
 
You are aware, I assume, that each gallon of gasoline is *already* taxed anywhere from 25.9 cents per gallon, to 48.4 cents per gallon, state and fed, depending on state? In fact New York State's combined tax burden on gas is 41.6 cpg, toward the high end.
And California was talking about an additional, per-mile tax on those hybrid cars. Buy hybrid, get the tax credit, save the environment! Uhoh, tax revenue is going down--okay, now we tax by the mile. It's not about the environment, it's about the money.

The core concept, I don't have a huge problem with--like I said above, it's about money. If we had to pay 5 bucks a gallon, you can bet demand for energy efficient vehicles would skyrocket. But it needs to come from the consumer.

Oh, don't forget, raising 'taxes on gasoline' would do far more damage than simply to those evil SUV owners. Private passenger vehicles only use something like 25% of the total US demand for oil-dervied gasoline. Planes, trains, tractor trailers, heating, factory usage, etc. Higher oil/gas prices will serve to increase all of those prices.

And, of course, higher gas taxes are inherently regressive, and harm the poor:

"A CBS poll taken on May 24 [2004] showed that 85 percent of people say they have been affected by current gas prices to some degree while 56 percent of people say they have been affected a great deal. Those affected a lot include people living in rural areas and people with incomes of $30,000 or less. These people are suffering with average total prices barely above $2 a gallon."

Even the poor without private autos, who rely on public transportation, would be affected, because buses use gas as well, and they're incredibly inefficent.

"Isn't the tax on gasoline high enough already? After all, according to statistics from the American Petroleum Institute, the price of crude oil today is still less than the price of crude oil during its record high in 1981, with prices adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, the cost of manufacturing, distributing and marketing gasoline has remained stagnant between then and now. What has increased is the gasoline tax, moving from 30 cents per gallon in 1981 to an average of 43 cents per gallon in 2004, with 18.4 cents per gallon being federal taxes and the rest state taxes.'

http://www.aim.org/briefing/A1660_0_5_0_C/

"Almost everything we use daily, from plastics to pharmaceuticals, requires some form of oil to create it. Sometimes we forget that oil is not just used to manufacture gasoline...."

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/lellis_20050315.html

"And the grim truth is that $50-a-barrel oil is here to stay. Some analysts even predict a $75 barrel during the peak summer driving season — and a $100-a-barrel “superspike” could come if Chinese and Indian energy consumption continues to soar."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050425.shtml
Competition. A greater buying market, which a very limited sellers market = higher gas/oil prices. More reason we should try to free ourselves from the yoke of foreign oil, whether that be by making our vehicles more efficient, alternate energy sources, or drilling in ANWR--or, better yet, all of the above.

But I admit, it's much more fun to buy into 'War for Oil!' propaganda.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I've heard many times that we've already developed an engine that's MUCH more efficient than the ones we have now, but the gas companies don't want it released. Can anybody else back this up?[/QUOTE]

There are alternatives. There's a guy who's invented a car that runs on 'oil' from fryers. He drives around and goes to restaurants and says Can I have your used cooking oil?

If consumers demanded loud enough that GM create and sell that engine, or other alternatives, it would happen.

http://www.veggievan.org/veggievan/article.html
 
[quote name='dtcarson']The core concept, I don't have a huge problem with--like I said above, it's about money. If we had to pay 5 bucks a gallon, you can bet demand for energy efficient vehicles would skyrocket. But it needs to come from the consumer.
[/QUOTE]Yeah, but it ain't coming from the consumer until the gas prices go up.
Of course its all about money. Our government is in the pocket of the oil companies.
This isn't just a Bush thing either, but being a (failed) Texas oilman he sure as hell isn't going to change anything.
 
That was an impressive, well thought out reply dtcarson; but I have a few points.

Additional taxes may not be best, but something needs to happen to persuade Americans to conserve the very limited oil resources we have (which won't likely last another 50 years). The fact that the average vehicle size goes up every year and the average fuel efficiency has gone down every year is a disturbing trend. The tax incentives many people cash in on when buying SUVs have not helped things. Perhaps the current higher gas prices can drive more people to buy more efficient vehicles.

It is often sited as a solution for our oil problems, but even at the best estimates for ANWR's oil reserves (from the USGS) suggest it would only be a temporary relief from our dependency on foreign oil resources. Other steps need to be taken to promote the development of alternative fuel sources, government money put into such research could save us much more in the long run once hydrogen fuel cells or other fuels sources are in use.
 
Americans need to learn that there are consequences for our dependance on oil and craving for large, ineffecient cars.

The sending of American sons/daughters off to fight in the Middle East will probably help the realization come sooner, at least for those who don't have their heads up their asses.

GM lost a cool billion last quarter (although they state rising healthcare costs as part of the reason): http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw114601_20050419.htm
 
If we wait for consumers to react it will only be when the lack of oil forces prices up. Protecting the environment should not depend on consumers, as the only reason the majority would use more fuel efficient cars is to cut down on the cost of gas. Someone has to move first, and in this case it won't be the consumer.

It would be great if oil went up to 4 or 5 a gallon, and the taxes from it were all poured into finding alternative resources.

edit: If you really want to complain, maybe we could price gas differently on where it was going. For example, if the gas is used for public transportation then it stays at its current rate, but gas coming from gas stations (the kind that regular drivers use) pay the 4 or 5 bucks.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']"A CBS poll taken on May 24 [2004] showed that 85 percent of people say they have been affected by current gas prices to some degree while 56 percent of people say they have been affected a great deal. Those affected a lot include people living in rural areas and people with incomes of $30,000 or less. These people are suffering with average total prices barely above $2 a gallon."

Even the poor without private autos, who rely on public transportation, would be affected, because buses use gas as well, and they're incredibly inefficent.
[/QUOTE]

This is my problem too. If you can afford a $65,000 Hummer, you can pay $5 a gallon for gas. Meanwhile someone like me driving a good-mileage sedan half the time and taking the bus the other half will be in a tough spot.
 
Let's also not forget that "other countries" are socialistic societies where the governmnet forks the bill for just about everything (healthcare, education, etc...) the HAVE to tax the hell out of gas and other consumables just to run the damn place.

Don't like capitalism...move.
 
[quote name='mcwilliams132']Let's also not forget that "other countries" are socialistic societies where the governmnet forks the bill for just about everything (healthcare, education, etc...) the HAVE to tax the hell out of gas and other consumables just to run the damn place.

Don't like capitalism...move.[/QUOTE]

Wait, so europe isn't capitalist? When did this happen?
 
[quote name='mcwilliams132']Let's also not forget that "other countries" are socialistic societies where the governmnet forks the bill for just about everything (healthcare, education, etc...) the HAVE to tax the hell out of gas and other consumables just to run the damn place.

Don't like capitalism...move.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, check out all those socialist countries. :roll: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with our goverment protecting their friends (and financial contributors) in the oil industry.

In case you haven't noticed, our country doesn't have enough money to "run the damn place" as evidenced by our huge deficit.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050425_0333.htm
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, check out all those socialist countries. :roll: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with our goverment protecting their friends (and financial contributors) in the oil industry.

In case you haven't noticed, our country doesn't have enough money to "run the damn place" as evidenced by our huge deficit.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050425_0333.htm[/QUOTE]

Venezuela 14 CENTS!?!? It's like candy there. With the money I give the average homeless guy on the street he could buy 6 gallons!

On a side note, what's it going for in Iraq?
 
as someone who has to drive over 200 miles a week solely to go to school and back, these gas increases are killing me, so any decrease would be a good thing. Getting more energy efficient cars on the market would be nice, but I don't see that happening anytime soon
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, check out all those socialist countries. :roll: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with our goverment protecting their friends (and financial contributors) in the oil industry.

In case you haven't noticed, our country doesn't have enough money to "run the damn place" as evidenced by our huge deficit.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050425_0333.htm[/QUOTE]

funny how the article actually makes my point:

Gasoline prices in the United States, which have recently hit record highs, are actually much lower than in many countries. A few countries, like Venezuela have prices that are far lower.

The main driver of price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

In Venezuela, on the other hand, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated May, 2004.
 
Anyone here watch best week ever? I thought it was funny that Pres. Bush didnt have enoguh money to buy a hamburger.
 
last time I worked with some guy from Lithuania and I was complaining about having to pay $2 a gallon (about 3 years ago), he told me that they pay that much per liter :shock:

Higher gas price wouldn't bother me too much since I dont' have to drive far (work and school are both within 5 miles of my house.) It'll at least get rid of some of the congested freeways and parking lots we have here in so cal.

But that probably won't happen as people will bitch to high heaven about having to pay higher prices for gas. Even though they drive huge SUVs that get less than 10 miles per gallon.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Gas prices going up, and the government staying out of it, is the best way to ensure something positive will happen. [/QUOTE]See first post. The government is not staying out of it. They are in the thick of it, working hard to keep prices low and their oil company backers satisfied.

[quote name='dtcarson']
If this was a 'war for oil', we'd be seeing gas at 1.00/gallon coming from US-controlled/owned pumps in Iraq. What's next, "Election 2000 was stolen" ?
[/QUOTE]This is a bit OT, but if the Middle East had no oil reserves, you think we still would have invaded Iraq?
 
[quote name='dtcarson']

CaseyRyback: Why are you driving 200 miles a week to go to school and back? That doesn't sound very efficient.[/QUOTE]


because Garner is fuckin far from my house (I go to Wake Tech). It takes me 18 miles each way. My sister only has to drive like 10 since she goes to state.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']
This is a bit OT, but if the Middle East had no oil reserves, you think we still would have invaded Iraq?[/QUOTE]

Of course we would! We really care about the poor and destitute in foreign nations! We really don't give a shit about our own... but hey, lets help them! :roll:

Also... Its not a war for oil in the sense the want to provide it cheaply. They want to claim a larger piece of the pie. If certain higher ups get a share of the inflated costs they are less likely to intervien when people complain.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']because Garner is fuckin far from my house (I go to Wake Tech). It takes me 18 miles each way. My sister only has to drive like 10 since she goes to state.[/QUOTE]

I drive 30 miles each way to school, but I only have to make the trip twice a week (assuming I go :lol: ).
 
As much as I'd like to get involved in this conversation, I believe anything I could add to the conversation that hasn't been said would put my job in jeopardy.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']As much as I'd like to get involved in this conversation, I believe anything I could add to the conversation that hasn't been said would put my job in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]

considering how down the Detroit has been, I think that would be best;)
 
Why would the gov't want to help the oil/gas companies keep prices low? If the cost of oil is high at the source, which it is, the co's. can pass that price increase along in the form of higher gas prices, still make money since gas is still in demand, and not be the 'bad guy' to anyone who realizes where gas comes from.
And wouldn't everyone in the US benefit from the oil supply being opened up a bit? Just because some industries stand to profit from that, doesnt' make the act inherently evil.

We don't give a shit about our own poor? Is that why we spend hundreds of millions on various welfare/aid programs, tax credits, tax bonuses, etc? And I dearly hope you're not equating American 'poor' to Iraqi 'poor'....most of our poor have a car, a place to live, a place to buy food, and they don't generally have to worry about having their hands chopped off by their own government. And, of course, they can actually vote.

If Iraq had no oil reserves, I think we would have removed their dictator from power anyway. He was a looming or actual threat to both peaceful nations and his own people. Not to mention randomly flaunting dozens of UN resolutions that they don't have the spine to enforce [the abolition of the UN, or the US's pulling out, will be saved for a later thread.]

I think in cases like this the President's involvement, if any, should be limited to 'talks' aimed at benefiting his nation. Diplomacy and all. Which I believe he's doing. Of course, I'd even more gladly support him staying out of it, and keeping the government out of *our* lives more as well.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
We don't give a shit about our own poor? Is that why we spend hundreds of millions on various welfare/aid programs, tax credits, tax bonuses, etc? And I dearly hope you're not equating American 'poor' to Iraqi 'poor'....most of our poor have a car, a place to live, a place to buy food, and they don't generally have to worry about having their hands chopped off by their own government. And, of course, they can actually vote.
[/QUOTE]

but our poor don't have universal health care;)
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Why would the gov't want to help the oil/gas companies keep prices low?[/QUOTE]Once the costs go up significantly, people will want more efficient vehicles (read: not good for oil companies).

[quote name='dtcarson']If Iraq had no oil reserves, I think we would have removed their dictator from power anyway.[/QUOTE]No way in hell. Look at all the shit that is going on in Africa...much worse than Iraq..but alas, its not a stategic oil locale.

[quote name='dtcarson']I think in cases like this the President's involvement, if any, should be limited to 'talks' aimed at benefiting his nation. Diplomacy and all. Which I believe he's doing. Of course, I'd even more gladly support him staying out of it, and keeping the government out of *our* lives more as well.[/QUOTE] Instead of talks benefiting his corporate pals, yes, I agree.
Remember when the Republicans were about small government and staying out of our homes/lives? Too bad those days are long gone.
 
I think if gas is taxed higher we will have serious issues. Not with everyday joes like us on the road but with mail (UPS, USPS), school bus systems, and mass transit. I was watching the news out of North Carolina a couple of weeks ago and the gas prices are causing school systems to struggle to make ends meet. I don't think people will be interested in paying $10 shipping from EBgames either (just an example). The best thing to do is phase in new energy sources through the school system and the other examples I listed. If you can get them going with water-powered, solar-powered, vegetable-oil powered engines, (or whatever) it will be a great way to test those engines and get them ready for consumer use. In 50 years (if we are lucky) the oil will run out and this will be moot anyway. I'd rather we test new sources now than wait until oil well is a day from running out.
 
I forgot who but someone made mention that while we're waiting for the hybrid revolution, the gov. should give tax breaks to critical public resources so as not to jack up the prices so suddenly. I think that's a reasonable idea. It would foster more public transportation, more carpooling, less pollution, etc. The only problem I think there would be is to convince US citizens to give up their own vehicles in favor of using public modes of movement. That will be the big issue if the idea takes off.
 
American auto manufacturers are now trying to play catchup to the Japanese manufacturers. The Japanese are poor in natural resources and recognized that eventually oil reserves would be depleted. They are at least a decade ahead of us in hybrid technology. In fact, the only current American hybrid (the Ford Escape) leases the technology from Toyota. The end result is that Toyota and Honda are reaping the benefits of high oil prices via skyrocketing sales of their hybrid vehicles.
 
If the United States doesn't act soon to curb our use of oil, we are destined to have an economic catastrophe. When (not if) oil hits $4 per gallon, the economy of nations heavily dependent on oil will suffer recessions if they are not properly prepared. The effect on Wall Street could be enough to cause another depression. If our politicians had any balls they would immediately enact legislation greatly increasing the mpg requirements of all vehicles.
 
Greasecar Have you guys been to this site? I'd love to do this conversion. A cheap diesel plus an $800 kit and you get a car that can be powered off of the grease that you can find behind many restaurants.

I'd like to see more hybrid cars and other fuel options, but there aren't many out there right now. I was curious about other fuel options and how available they are.

Alternate Fuel Station Locator
Alternate Fuel Station map This shows a map of different types of fuels and their stations across the US. There are very few in IN. :cry:

GSA Fleet Vehicle Sales This is a site that auctions off gov. vehicles. They have a section just for alternately fueled vehicles.

The only alturnive fuel that would be practical for me is the grease car. Everything else is too far away. The closest city with a decent number of stations is Chicago.
 
[/QUOTE]

This is a bit OT, but if the Middle East had no oil reserves, you think we still would have invaded Iraq?[/QUOTE]


If we invaded for oil, why in the world are we asking Saudi Arabia to up their output???

This whole invasion for oil conspiracy was even debunked by your beloved Bill Maher.

Everyone needs to watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit. There was an episode last season concerning the environment. You might actually learn something.:lol:


EDIT:
I've just noticed that it seems like I'm chasing all the Bill Maher enthusiasts. I guess I'm just going to have to keep some opinions to myself. :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='Derwood43']
If we invaded for oil, why in the world are we asking Saudi Arabia to up their output???

This whole invasion for oil conspiracy was even debunked by your beloved Bill Maher.

Everyone needs to watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit. There was an episode last season concerning the environment. You might actually learn something.:lol:


EDIT:
I've just noticed that it seems like I'm chasing all the Bill Maher enthusiasts. I guess I'm just going to have to keep some opinions to myself. :whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

Heh heh...I've seen every episode of P&T's Bullshit. I love that show ;)
And I never said we invaded Iraq to get their oil. I think we are are in Iraq to have a strong pressence in the Middle East (where the oil is).

The Saudi Royal Family need our protection and we need their oil.
 
Toyota, GM to scrap plan on fuel-cell car tie-up

TOKYO (AFP) - Toyota Motor and General Motors will scrap a planned fuel-cell vehicle joint venture over a disagreement on technology sharing, a report said.

The world's top two automakers had been aiming to start the partnership in mid-2005 but talks had stalled after they failed to agree on how much fuel-cell technology to exchange, the Asahi Shimbun said. But the daily said Toyota and GM would continue their cooperation on research and development in environmental technology for automobiles.

Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as the only by-product.

Fuel-cell vehicles generate no harmful emissions and are one step ahead of other hybrid vehicles which combine conventional internal combustion engines with electric motors.

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050730172924.vz2t2zh1.html

GM was probably trying to work a deal to assimilate Toyota technology into their P.O.S. cars.

R.I.P. GM
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']This is my problem too. If you can afford a $65,000 Hummer, you can pay $5 a gallon for gas. Meanwhile someone like me driving a good-mileage sedan half the time and taking the bus the other half will be in a tough spot.[/QUOTE]

This is why shit like Light Rail/Subway Cars/El Trains are so great. It's a mass transit system and the only real problems with it are the starting costs and the lack of adaptability like buses but they will save people hansomely in the future.
Oh and on the Hybrid point that makes me mad because someone made the point that what will they do next? Fine people for speeding just by looking at your GPS? If you're gonna fine for speeding at least have the BALLS to pull me over and issue me the ticket you fucking pussies.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Toyota, GM to scrap plan on fuel-cell car tie-up

TOKYO (AFP) - Toyota Motor and General Motors will scrap a planned fuel-cell vehicle joint venture over a disagreement on technology sharing, a report said.

The world's top two automakers had been aiming to start the partnership in mid-2005 but talks had stalled after they failed to agree on how much fuel-cell technology to exchange, the Asahi Shimbun said. But the daily said Toyota and GM would continue their cooperation on research and development in environmental technology for automobiles.

Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as the only by-product.

Fuel-cell vehicles generate no harmful emissions and are one step ahead of other hybrid vehicles which combine conventional internal combustion engines with electric motors.

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050730172924.vz2t2zh1.html

GM was probably trying to work a deal to assimilate Toyota technology into their P.O.S. cars.

R.I.P. GM[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt that Toyota is way ahead of GM in terms of fuel cell technology. Toyota would probably do much better by partnering with Honda.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
And California was talking about an additional, per-mile tax on those hybrid cars. Buy hybrid, get the tax credit, save the environment! Uhoh, tax revenue is going down--okay, now we tax by the mile. It's not about the environment, it's about the money.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you pay less tax the more miles you drive per gallon.

Dumbass.
 
American car companies have been buying up public transit for decades, stripping it out, and building roads. Only in the past decade or two has the trend gone back towards more public transportation. Anyone who has the opportunity to goto work using a clean, on-time, and affordable method of public transport can tell you that its the way of the future.
 
Consumer gasoline use accounts for 20% of our nations use of oil. The overwhelming majority goes to electrical generation. Then followed by trucking, railroads, airlines and public transportation.

If every car got double the gas mileage you're getting now you're cutting national consumption by 10%. Of course though you're either dealing with electric cars (Which still need the oil for power generation.) or hybrid cars. If you cut gas usage and hence taxes in half the tax shortfall would be enormous.
 
[quote name='camoor'] and affordable method of public transport can tell you that its the way of the future.[/QUOTE]

That's what they said 50 years ago.:lol:

I'd simply like to see semi-trucks taxed for the actual road damage they do a year, it might do wonders for railroads.
 
[quote name='camoor']American car companies have been buying up public transit for decades, stripping it out, and building roads. Only in the past decade or two has the trend gone back towards more public transportation. Anyone who has the opportunity to goto work using a clean, on-time, and affordable method of public transport can tell you that its the way of the future.[/QUOTE]

That's only feasible in large, centralized cites. It could never work for places like Kansas City.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']That's only feasible in large, centralized cites. It could never work for places like Kansas City.[/QUOTE]

That's true of any city with substantial "exburbs" like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Houston. Hell they're planning one stretch of exburb cities along the I-35 corridor between Dallas and Oklahoma City covering 200 miles.

They've been able to get distribution centers and international companies (Asian specifically.) to move to Oklahoma. The Japanese executives have asked why they should base in Oklahoma instead of Dallas. Answer, taxes are 1/3rd-1/2 of Dallas. Then they argue about distance to airports and real estate is 30-40 cents on the dollar compared to Dallas' downtown. Oklahoma (Ardmore, as an example.) to DFW driving time 90 minutes, similar to driving time from Tokyo suburbs to Narita. Bring in broadband and you're in a position to compete economically with any city in the world given access to a major international airport.

Now how the hell are you going to build public transportation from Ardmore, OK to Oklahoma City or Dallas? This is how our cities are evolving. There's marketing done by every small town between Cleveland and Pittsburgh to lure businesses out of both cities. The major development locally here is within 10 minutes of the airport and the square footage of planned industrial parks is nearly 15-20% of existing space for the downtown. Advatages being taxes and cost per square foot.

Our cities aren't centralizing, they're decentralizing and that makes public transportation, especially light rail or maglev, prohibitively expensive.
 
I would debate the prohibitively expensive part. Soon enough that "prohibitively expensive" figure will look nice if gas goes up enough. Sure we can debate clean, efficient vehicles becoming a reality but if equalized I think the bulk quantity of people on said transport negates most of those other clean fuel vehicles in cost. In other words it fucking SHATTERS your cost traveling to places because of the sheer # of other people traveling with you and how much cheaper(or possibly more expensive) may these other choices be? It comes to the idea that public transport may be the only option people could end up stomaching because of potential clean fuel cost. Just speculating here.
Also what I like about public transportation is that I may meet someone else to chat with. Sometimes it's nice to have company. I know that sounds terrible but it's how I feel.
In terms of gas prices and the Hybrid bit I say the loss should be shirked off to the Sports Car/Hummer driver by only increasing the price of Premium gas. If you can afford that car expect to take the worst in gas prices including tax. That car is a luxury that you don't NEED to get to work or wherever. This avoids the problem mentioned of people taking the bus getting it stuck to them as well as us regular Joe's who drive on Unleaded.
 
We're building a subway extension here for our stadiums that's 1.6 miles for $450 million. That's ridiculously expensive.

Maglev running 50 miles from the eastern suburbs, downtown and to the Pittsburgh airport has been estimated at $800 million.

Gas would have to hit $15 a gallon for people not to think that was insane. What are you going to do when you have to take that light rail out 60 miles for places like Atlanta, Dallas and Kansas City? It can't be done. You can't spend billions of dollars on public transportation on a metro area that has 3-5 million people spread out over 7 counties. You're talking about $670+ per capita per billion in project expenses for a metro population of 3 million.

So, tell me.... since you want to debate prohibitively expensive, where you would get the money to spend on this type of public transportation. You want to screw with entitlements? Health care? Schools? Raise income and sales taxes?

It can't be done. You can't get people out of their cars by embracing public transportation.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Consumer gasoline use accounts for 20% of our nations use of oil. The overwhelming majority goes to electrical generation. Then followed by trucking, railroads, airlines and public transportation.

If every car got double the gas mileage you're getting now you're cutting national consumption by 10%. Of course though you're either dealing with electric cars (Which still need the oil for power generation.) or hybrid cars. If you cut gas usage and hence taxes in half the tax shortfall would be enormous.[/QUOTE]


Actually, that is not correct. Cars and light trucks consume 40% of our national oil usage. The total for the transportation segment (cars, light trucks, planes, tractor trailers, etc.) is close to 67%. The rest is used for electricity generation, plastics, and other uses. That is definitely a far cry from an "overwhelming majority".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top