The personal automobile makes for a bad romance

[defendandprotect]

The personal automobile makes for a bad romance

9/13/10 07:04 pm Updated: 9/14/10 09:42 am

EXCERPT ONLY --

Critics respond that buses are not marketed because consumers have voted with their pocketbooks for cars. Only quirky elitist intellectuals like me seek public alternatives. And the only way we can achieve that would be to tax our neighbors and subsidize buses.

That reply is powerful and not completely wrong, but it would carry more weight if our “market” for transportation were truly free. Tax and budgetary priorities are loaded with perks that deflate the cost of vehicle use.

Writing in Foreign Policy in Focus, Mark Engler cites studies by former Reagan adviser Mark Copulos, who argues: “If you add to oil-related defense spending such factors as the economic impact of periodic oil supply disruptions and the opportunity costs of money spent on oil imports that might have been used elsewhere … the ‘hidden’ costs of the U.S. dependence on petroleum would total up to $825 billion per year … adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline …”




http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/bdn/The-personal-automobile-makes-for-a-bad-romance,153696

[MindPilot]

1. There is not a tranportation system that is not in some way subsidised

Even side-walks and bike trails are publicly financed.

[old mark]

2. As much as I love cars, I have to agree with this - and it is a problem that is not

really being addressed here beyond a few bandaid fixes and publicity stunts.

mark

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Buses disrupt traffic and waste gas, but their benefit is

that they provide transportation for people without cars (or money to pay for parking)

Buses are an important benefit for society. I am all for them.

But surprisingly ineffective in reducing traffic or saving fuel.

[EOTE]

5. Buses waste gas?

So you're saying that if the people taking buses instead had cars to get where they needed to go, less gas would be consumed? I find that very hard to believe. Buses are typically diesels and I believe they typically get high single digits, low double digits in terms of fuel economy. They'd have to run fairly inefficient routes in order to waste gas compared to cars.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. On average they are not very efficient

Focusing on only peak rush hour buses do well. Full buses do well.

But a good public transport system that really serves the populace is not all full buses at peak hours.

Much love for buses. I use them. They're good.

But unless limited to the more efficient routes and times they're not super efficient.

As more go to things like natural gas that may change.

[EOTE]

8. Not very efficient, but more efficient than cars.

We can always strive to be more efficient, but for the time being, we have to go with the best feasible technology we have available. I know that buses are most efficient when they're full, just as cars are most efficient when they carry more than one passenger. Unfortunately, both are unlikely to happen very often. Overall, buses do top cars in terms of efficiency. That being said, there are other, better forms of public transportation that should receive more funding.

[defendandprotect]

10. You are comparing "traffic" to today's traffic which is heavy with personal cars ....

If we had really effective mass transportation that "traffic" would be hugely

lessened -- rather than regularly increasing!

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Reading the lead, my first thought was that it referred to

eliminating the wide, single front seat of cars and replacing them with bucket seats.

You can't drive with your honey snuggled under your arm with bucket seats.

[jdlh8894]

7. But that console came in handy @ times! LOL n/t

[Codeine]

9. "Stick shifts and safety belts, buckets seats have all got to go.

when we're driving in my car it makes my baby seem so far." - Cake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3i7EFYk-_c