[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' '). . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' '). . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow, tell me - why will everyone suddenly start caring in the future, when their own budgets become tighter?

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' '). . .
Now, tell me - why will everyone suddenly start caring in the future, when their own budgets become tighter?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', 'T')he crucial question is whether these greater community forming imperatives will take place at a lagging pace to the developement of peak conditions or what.

I don't think the middle class wants raging mobs at their doorstep . . . in urban environments this is a more immediate concern.

[Backpacker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' '). . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', '
') Which brings up another intersesting point of mandatory conservation...re-instating the gas guzzler tax. Make it so expensive to own and operate an SUV that people will be forced to give them up for more efficient economy cars. The point of mandatory conservation is not to deny people basic necessities but to put an end to energy gluttony and overconsumption.

[Backpacker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', '
') Which brings up another intersesting point of mandatory conservation...re-instating the gas guzzler tax. Make it so expensive to own and operate an SUV that people will be forced to give them up for more efficient economy cars. The point of mandatory conservation is not to deny people basic necessities but to put an end to energy gluttony and overconsumption.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', ' ') That is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The lower income couple would not be affected by a gas guzzler tax because more than likely they don't own one. The refusing to widen roads to accomodate increased vehicle traffic and instead providing more mass rail transit would help the lower income as it would give them a very cheap option for getting to work. They would not have to rely on the automobile.
In my signature I speak of car-reduced living, which I practice. My need to work is significantly reduced because I do not have car payments. I am about 80% car-reduced. If the govt would quit widening roads and instead provide mass rail transit, more public transport in more towns, bike commuter paths (which we have in Massachussetts) the govt. would help the lower income because it would give them other options from getting from point A to B other than the automobile.
The US needs to implement a european style rail and trolley transit system with a little Japanese high speed train thrown in along with a network of bike paths that are in proximity to employment and shopping (check www.railstotrail.org/ and www.biketrans.com/). Make car-reduced living simple and easy.

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', 'T')he crucial question is whether these greater community forming imperatives will take place at a lagging pace to the developement of peak conditions or what.

I don't think the middle class wants raging mobs at their doorstep . . . in urban environments this is a more immediate concern.

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'T')he upper-middle class routinely purchase houses in the $500,000 range. They purchase $20,000 watches. They spend six figures on their daughter's wedding - and no, I'm not counting the two spaces for cents. Do you really, truly believe that they are going to blanch at paying an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars for a car? Especially when they presently purchase high-end Mercedes that may well run close to $100,000?

[Backpacker]

From personal observation in the last 2 years I would say that Austin and Corpus Christi both have the the denisty for well run mass transit in their respective city centers. The Dallas/Ft Worth area has the density not only to justify rail/subways downtown but in the corridor connecting the two cities. There is certainly enough density in TX (or anywhere in the world more or less) to justify high speed city connecting rail. What easier place in the world is there to lay track than TX anyway.

Mass Transit is nothing but affordable, and safe - this is part of it's nature. In LA we just had terrible train accident of which you are probably aware. That makes 10 people killed and 100 injured in the last DECADE of operation. Would you like to guess how many people were killed by cars? How much do I have to pay to ride unlimited times a day in LA - 3$. That isn't affordable?

And yet people are still opposing transit in LA and sitting in traffic in LA in their cushy idling SUVs - the average (AVERAGE) highway speed at rush hour is 18 mph. These are not RATIONAL conusmers - they need cultural reeducation.[/quote]
The reason why people won't use public transport even when it is so available and affordable is because, among the middle and upper class, public transportation is looked upon as being the transportation method of choice for the lower classes. They refuse to get off of their high horse and "mingle with the commoners" on public transport. They would rather sit in 18 mph traffic and pressure the govt. into widening roads than give up their private vehicle and associate with the plebians. It is a materialistic "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. That is why I advocate that the govt. quit widening road to accomodate increased vehicle traffic no matter how much the public complains. Spend the money on mass rail transit instead. Force them to abandon driving to work and taking rail instead.
The comment about the average rush hour speed in LA being 18 mph brings up a good point. Along that same line it has been demonstrated in studies that, for in-town driving, the average speed on a bicycle is only around 4 miles per hour slower than the average speed in an automobile. It is nice when traffic is backed up at an intersection and I zip right by them on my bike.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', 'I')n response to the Suburbs fighting off a lower class insurrection - I doubt it would be so clean. Take a look at Iraq sir.

Regarding the housing projects and urban ghettoes - they coexist but the tension is great. If a greater part of the lower class in this country was to find common cause with only mild support from a small segment of the middle class you would have a mess on your hands (more than now).

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', 'F')rom personal observation in the last 2 years I would say that Austin and Corpus Christi both have the the denisty for well run mass transit in their respective city centers.
(snip)

[Frank]

Normally I feel that the marketplace can make the best choices, but only if price reflects cost and this is definitely not the case w.r.t. oil used for transportation.

I doubt if most people really understand or even think about where the gas for their vehicle comes from. Most people just don't know. It's treated like an entitlement these days. And the reality is that it's fun to drive those bigger vehicles: you sit higher up, see better, etc. etc.

This is why some regulation is good. To protect us from ourselves. CAFE made an impact during the '70's and '80's but hasn't done anything since then. If we went to a market-based Feebate system, it could turn things around pretty quick IMO. (This works by imposing a stiff tax on vehicles on the "wrong" side of some desired mpg rating and giving that money to purchasers of vehicles on the "right" side of the rating number.) Really rich folks will still buy what they want, but the vast majority of middle-class consumers will think twice before getting that SUV or pick-up truck.

If we don't do anything voluntarily, sooner or later reality will take over anyway so maybe this is a moot discussion.

[Backpacker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Frank', 'N')ormally I feel that the marketplace can make the best choices, but only if price reflects cost and this is definitely not the case w.r.t. oil used for transportation.

I doubt if most people really understand or even think about where the gas for their vehicle comes from. Most people just don't know. It's treated like an entitlement these days. And the reality is that it's fun to drive those bigger vehicles: you sit higher up, see better, etc. etc.

This is why some regulation is good. To protect us from ourselves. CAFE made an impact during the '70's and '80's but hasn't done anything since then. If we went to a market-based Feebate system, it could turn things around pretty quick IMO. (This works by imposing a stiff tax on vehicles on the "wrong" side of some desired mpg rating and giving that money to purchasers of vehicles on the "right" side of the rating number.) Really rich folks will still buy what they want, but the vast majority of middle-class consumers will think twice before getting that SUV or pick-up truck.

If we don't do anything voluntarily, sooner or later reality will take over anyway so maybe this is a moot discussion.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', 'E')nact tough new legislation and start forcing them to conserve.

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Backpacker', 'E')nact tough new legislation and start forcing them to conserve.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xelat', '
')Gasoline is not easily smuggled the way drugs are. Entirely different situation.

[BlisteredWhippet]

Just a thought....

Whos going to need gasoline to commute to jobs they won't have?

I think the situation is far worse and so chaotic no amount of command and control will be enough. Moreover, no amount of command and control will be good. The right hand of the law will back up such regulatory features, and this will take paramilitary form.

The question we should be asking is, "Is this what we want?"

Batting around the table our amateur macroeconomic theories is fine and good but the fact is that no amount of simple infrastructure change is going to increase the sustainability factor of the average metropolitan area in a post-peak scenario. The suburbs are likewise substantially unsustainable.

The premise that I'm smelling from this thread is that the oil crash will be gradual, even subtle, enough so that "cooler heads will prevail". That politicians and our systems will be able to cope in a more or less standard fashion. We have completely lost our imagination for such drastic scenarios. For example the stock market crash of 1929 occured in a single day. What drives the market is speculation and investors' emotion. As it is spectacularly overvalued, imagine that the economic crash will come quicker than conventional social problems. OPEC will start trading oil in Euros instead of dollars. That decision will come within a day. People will lose 90% of their net worth between breakfast and lunch.

These are sudden catastrophes leading to very quick cascading systemic effects that I feel a lot of people simply haven't come to understand. They believe a rational approach will work. It will, but it requires foresight and a willingness to embrace RADICAL change.

My fear is that necessary changes will be held back by a hysterical mob of people, addicted to the system, who cannot or won't think outside the box. They'll call first for the government to save them by regulation, then by force, until the nation is a police state.

Those who fear anarchy will lose their democracy (such as it is) by giving it in exchange for "security".

That said, the European approach works to some extent to control fuel use behaviors, but fundamentally that system is also based on access to fuel for industry and commerce and as such is just as unsustainable in the long run.