Well the price of oil hasn't got to the point where it is going to end the age of OIL...

Americans aren't driving less yet....they are merely diveriting income that would be spent in other places to buying gasoline...Gasoline is a necessity..to get back and forth to work etc.

There is NO ALTERNATIVE source of energy that can take the place of oil....coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas...all have their places...Solar is inefficeient, Geo Thermal, Hydroelectric, Wind...all can help but can't replace...

I said it before and Island reiterated it....The Oil companies are in the energy business, not just oil persay...at one time XOM owned Nuclear Plants....so they will get behind anything if it is viable


Raising Taxes on Petroleum products would be like slitting your own throats...

We are in a BRAVE NEW WORLD since 911....the American people are going to have to face realities that are not to their liking... that basically we are losing our edge...that the wanabes are far hungrier...and are willing to give it a bit more...

The USA is like a team that has won four Superbowls in a row, and now is coasting on it's past glory... has lost it's opening game on the new season... has performed lack lusterly, winning by going through the motions that got those Supebowl wins and the back up Quarterback is screaming that it is all the Quartebacks fault so put him in.. while the rest of the team looks at each other shrugging their shoulders as each of them drives away in their Ferraris.

Instead of a Gasoline tax...why not charge a road useage tax the more U drive the more you pay....

. .and what then when not everybody can find puplic transit within walking distance of their home ?

Seriously, over here we like our space. That pushes the population densiity lower, which in turn makes mass transit less viable for many areas.

I suppose that one could argue that we should change our urban and regional planning to better support density . . . but that is another topic. . . to better support transit . . . to better support a particular kindom (city)

FWIW, I see this model of 'The City" being thee place where everyone commutes to/from (the hub of all things work related) as diminishing. Thru increasing costs, Cities regularly push manufacturing out . .. then way out . .. and the worker follow. Mass transit, such as trains, can not reconfigure quickly enough to respond to the needs.

Of course, most cities build transit for one reason only . ..it brings them money & power, City officials want "All roads lead to Rome" - so to speak- This, so that they can have a captive tax base.

BTW, most of my commuting is done thru the internet and telephone.

as much as I loath sports analogies, that was good.

island, that is the point made initially in the thread, raise a tax on fuel
to pay for the public transportation... in the end , that will be the only viable solution unless they invent solar powered SUV's that sell for 4 grand a pop...


realistically , the US is one of the very few nations in the world where they haven't figured this out. you guys , are going to be late for the show. there's a lot of catching up to do , maybe it's not an issue yet, but future generations in the US will be screwed if nothing happens...

Pretty soon that team is going to find themselves being a bunch of has beens...

A solution that is not regressive is a PAY FOR ROAD USEAGE SYSTEM (PAY BY THE MILE)...the more U drive the more you pay...where the money is put into Mass Transit...

Each road in the system would have a mileage rate based upon how heavy the useage, and it could even be based upon the time of day...peak hours have a higher rate...lesser used roads would have a lower rate....

Have you been to NYC?

I think that you have a distorted perception here. The US has been ahead of the curve . . driving all sorts of transportaion solutions(among other). It's just that we apply different solutions to different regions.

Also, as I allluded to before, we now have these new collaboration tools; internet, personal computers. ..

... but you go right on believing that Europe is the progressive innovator. . . and the US is the one lagging in it's backwards thinking. ;)

they're thinking about that in holland
and some of the issues are

how to track who drove where?

either they put a black box in your car... nice, big brother knows every move you make (Germany uses this for trucks)

or they put number plate scanners on every road they want to charge
for if you ask me , this is going to be a fraud sensitive approach
(London city congestion charge)

or toll booths all over the place ( like on french highways, and in the US they use this as well )

either way , i don't like any of these ideas

why bother, tax the fuel, and you automatically tax milage
and emissions... cheap, fuel efficient cars automatically pay less

don't get me wrong , personally , i don't want taxed fuel, but that's the way it is, and realistically , it's a fair way of taxing car usage... at least it is , if the proceeds are used correctly ... eg for public transport and public use

yeah i've been to the big apple , and yes there is a subway
but that's more an exception to the rule in the US... you can't deny that. i'm talking every metropole , every city , even small towns... obiously , the bigger the town , the more complex the infrastructure ...you guys don't have that , we do , so do many asian countries, fact of life

That is a pretty damn big IF.

Like:
We can let this multi-count convicted sex offender run this day-care center IF he will behave properly.

I didin't know Michael Jackson wants to start a day care center....OHHHH your talking about Never Never Land....I get it...good one Island..hehehehe

A pay per mile tax would be a logistical nightmare. Why not just raise tax on gas? The more you drive the more you pay. The bigger the vehicle the more you pay. Simple.

well yeah , but what do you expect , it's a forum, that's the point of it

you discuss theory's and opionions on it, and you're bound to run into if's all over the place, how those theory's turn into real life tactics depends on who you put in the hotseat(s) doesn't it... that's not something i can do for you. but one thing i can do , is give some ideas of what's possible and allready happening outside the US and what's needed to overcome the oil addiction. i guys a lot of people are still in denial about it... step up and say "hi , i'm xxx and i'm addicted to oil"

personally , i don't give a ****, i don't have kids , i don't want kids
so none of my offspring is going to pay the price for it... with some luck , i'll be able to burn some more fossile fuels before my own ticky ticker stops ticking... if not , then i'll have public transport... i'm covered...

Now that you mention it....the Black Box system doesn't know WHICH road you drove on just the ROAD RATE...

The Big Brother issue is one of the issues that the Designers of this type of system are very aware of...an any system marketed would address these concerns....this I know from one of the leaders in this technology...

still is a logistical nightmare to implement on all cars that are on the road now.
it's more doable for trucks since they are renewed more often
and there's less trucks to begin with, and they are more checked anyway(over here they are anyway , there is still customs doin patrols on transport of goods) , so fraud isn't so possible (not having a box) ...

Just like LOjac is and GPS...

Don't worry these systems are on their way...starting in 2006....

Problem is that the people who drive the most are most likely to be the poorest. The burger fryers and housekeepers live the farthest especially in high value real estate markets like LA.

If you want to decrease the amount of fuel used, increase things like mileage requirements for cars. You could also make the req'ments address more emissions issues.

poorest people drive the most ??!??!
you smoking something?
the poorest people don't drive cars
they live in cardboard boxes
and are unemployed


how much public transport can they build in one year?
i think if the politicians went for it , then that could be a lot

the german maglev for example, it doesn't even need to be on the ground... and guess what? the Chineze are installing it ... China knows it needs public transport to survive...

this is basically the chicken and the egg you guys argue with

don't have public transport , so we need cars
we don't install public transport, because we have cars
anyone who doesn't have a car... tough luck
if we can't fuel our cars... oooh ****.

maybe you spead-read over this... Again, you could argue that we should change our urban and regional planning to better support urban density. . . .but why?