What does the price at the pump actually have to do with what is being made? Artificially raising the price of fuel is a needless burden on people, and isn't going to have a huge effect on what cars are being produced.

Want a tax that will encourage efficient cars? Tax the hell out of inefficient systems, and provide rebates on efficient ones. People who are struggling to make ends meet with their current old car aren't slapped with extra taxes they can't afford. Directly impacts people who are actually buying new cars,... You know, the people actually encouraging what the automotive industry produces. The guy buying the cheapest used car he can find has zero impact on what new models hit to road, so why should he get hit with a tax designed to change what is being put on the market?

This is exactly the point I was trying to make above.

The president can give speeches and demand that the auto industry improve efficiency by 10%.

That won't even cover simple population growth. The census showed the population over the past decade were at 10.6% increase.

Assuming they want cars at the same rate as their family and friends have done, we're losing ground. Plus add more drivers, more traffic, more sprawl, and demands for the fuel will increase.

Then consider the many nations that are just now beginning to also acquire our thirst for fossil fuels, notably China.



While improving efficiency of the current problem can help it last longer, it won't fix it. It won't change until we have enough market force. In the near term the market forces will simply roll over to different fossil fuels like natural gas. It's the same problem, just at a different cost.

It won't be until the fuel is substantially higher that we'll see a change. It must be high enough that the cost difference covers the currently more expensive technology, plus covers the expense to move over.

Politicians value their seats too much to raise taxes on fuel enough to force the market to change, so we're in a situation where we simply wait for the prices to explode and the market to find a new route.

I've said this for years that we should have invested in public transportation systems instead of personal transportation. Personal transport is fun, but it's seriously inefficient when it comes to moving people. Universal PRT systems and maglev trains solve the bigger issues. Sadly socialized transportation would never get support in the US and private companies would probably never get the permits.

It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

@Luckless: I was responding to this comment not your post. I should have made that more clear.

I've said this for years that we should have invested in public transportation systems instead of personal transportation. Personal transport is fun, but it's seriously inefficient when it comes to moving people. Universal PRT systems and maglev trains solve the bigger issues. Sadly socialized transportation would never get support in the US and private companies would probably never get the permits.

This is entirely location dependent.

When your population density is measured in 4 or 5 digits per square mile, then absolutely it makes sense. When discussing city areas with 10,000 or 20,000 or even 50,000 people per square mile, they certainly need it.

When your population density is measured in double digits or single digits or starts with zero-point-something per square mile, not so much. When discussing farming areas where a square mile has zero humans and perhaps a few cows on average, or swamps with zero people and a few gators on average, or deserts with zero people and a few cacti on average, they certainly do not.


You are right that personal cars are "seriously inefficient" compared to mass transit when you are talking about moving people through the NYC area, Boston, Chicago and other areas with dense population. But installing maglev trains through Wyoming and Montana is also "seriously inefficient" when compared to personal vehicles.


I would not support nation-wide mass transit systems. Regional mass transit makes sense in some places, but nationally it is absolutely stupid.

As a nation, the United States is very sparsely populated. There are a few clusters of people of course, but generally the populations nationally are minimal.

When creating nationwide policy, you must remember that it applies just as equally to those living in downtown NYC as those living in the most remote frozen tundra in Alaska, the swamps and fens of Florida and Georgia, the deserts of Nevada and Utah, the Great Plains prairies, the most remote mountain peaks, and also the many wilderness areas where mechanized equipment is restricted or outright banned by federal law. Nationwide policy is nationwide.

Be VERY careful about nationwide solutions without considering the full spectrum of the nation.

Yeah that's what I meant. Cities and long distance travel. I wasn't insisting on replacing suburban or rural transportation. Though that would be an interestingly complicated goal. Mostly what a maglev system allows is passenger and freight travel (though only light freight. I think I saw a quote a long time ago that each car in the train could support only 20 tons of extra weight). Assuming vacuum tunnels things would be epic. I think my brain lives in a sci-fi world though. But yeah it's not possible for private companies to do it. Not only the cost and permits, but the standards. It would need to be one company or many doing it one standard way which is very hard usually.

cut for length

I will say that a lot of cities have generally trash public transport anyway. The huge cities tend to do alright, but a lot of medium sized cities tend to just use poorly designed bus systems that are generally ignored in favor of personal transport.

A very interesting problem to overcome with public transport is the shift toward suburban living. Medium sized cities don't usually have the budget to install commuter trains or even buses to their suburbs. This is at least the way it is where I'm from (Milwaukee) and a couple other cities in the midwest. There was talk of a lightrail system from the suburbs to downtown that would work, but it's always just on the edge of the budget and never makes any progress.

It would be really nice if there were a commuter train that went all the way from chicago to Milwaukee. It's like 90 miles, and the cheapest train is Amtrack, which is like $70.

SPEAKING OF AMTRACK. it blows donkey balls. America could really use a long distance train system that wasn't trying to sell itself on the experience of riding a train. Amtrack was more expensive than flying the last time I checked.

SPEAKING OF AMTRACK. it blows donkey balls. America could really use a long distance train system that wasn't trying to sell itself on the experience of riding a train. Amtrack was more expensive than flying the last time I checked.

Which is a crime in my opinion.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1311596985' post='4839956']
SPEAKING OF AMTRACK. it blows donkey balls. America could really use a long distance train system that wasn't trying to sell itself on the experience of riding a train. Amtrack was more expensive than flying the last time I checked.

Which is a crime in my opinion.
[/quote]

It seems to be basically the same way in Canada. North America really needs to go back to rail, and it really makes sense to do so if you look at a population density map. Given that most of the dense population areas in Canada, the USA, (and Mexico to a lesser extent.) are that way because they are along the old rail routes, 5 or 6 main lines gets something like 75% of the population.

Put a double/triple mid-high speed rail line running east/west in Canada, Northern and Southern USA, a line running from Eastern and western coasts of the USA, and along the Mississippi. Then run regional webs to connect major centers for the rest of the areas that get fed by regular bus service to even more rural areas.

There is no good reason why it is not cheap, comfortable, and reasonably quick for me to travel from Eastern Canada to the South West USA. (And transport trucks should never need to cross more than one state/provincial line to effectively and rapidly move goods across either country.)

Maglevs for everyone! (I'm only half-joking).

They should make big planes that are like zeppelins, but only use the gas thingies to make them lighter so staying in air uses less fuel.