Double Dip Recession? What there ever a recovery?

[Broomstick]

Take the location I live in: the San Francisco Bay Area. It's got very high population density but I still have a 40 mile round trip commute and most of the key places I need to get to are anywhere between 3 and 10 miles away from my home one-way. A tripling of gas taxes under these sorts of circumstances would do nothing but squeeze strapped families even more.

Or we could, maybe, make it more feasible for people to walk that 3 miles because a healthy adult should have no problem doing that, with a handcart for purchases (I used to do that, and still own not one but two such handcarts). Or people could start riding bicycles - mine already has a cargo rack on it. Wouldn't work for all purchases, of course, but there, for instance, sidewalks or bike lanes around here I could have done today's grocery shopping on my bike instead of using my car. Except there is nowhere to park a bike at the Aldi's.

It would, of course, require a significant social change in the US, or actually several: the notion people can walk or bike to the store instead of drive, modifying roads to make that easier, and most importantly, for US drivers to accept that pedestrians and bicyclists have as much right to use the roads as cars instead of viewing them as targets to be run off the road or worse.

[Simon_Jester]

The 'walking' solution simply has a time constraint with it. Walking three miles to the grocery store with a handcart means spending about an hour each way (unless you can jog with a handcart, an feat I wouldn't care to try and duplicate). You can do that, but not every day, not unless you're a professional domestic who spends literally all day doing nothing but the chores associated to maintaining a household.

Which used to be the norm, that there would be one or more live-in domestics per household- back before women's lib. I don't think I want to go back; do you?

Biking works. It's a lot more practical than walking, and we can readily (and should) modify with an eye to that. I think we're already seeing that trend, it's just low-profile and hasn't really broken out into universality.

...

Also, is long distance trucking really faster than long distance rail? I've had the opposite experience as a passenger- I can entrain in Washington, D.C. and be in Los Angeles in three days; driving it requires five days unless you've got metaphorical balls of steel. Granted, truckers are famous for long driving days, but you've got to sleep some time, and a train can keep going more or less continuously.

Then again there's switching and whatnot- passenger trains may travel "express" or "limited" between two points, but freight probably won't.

[Broomstick]

Now, we could fix that- decentralize food production somewhat, upgrade rail infrastructure, and so on. But it wouldn't be a fast process, and taxing fuel consumption in certain places before that fix was in place wouldn't have the desired effect.

Only somewhat?

We could drastically decentralize food production in the US. It would not, however, be as efficient and would drive up costs - whether to the savings in transportation costs would compensate I don't know. There's a break-even point in there somewhere but I'm not sure where it is.

Let's say, hypothetically, the California Central Valley disappeared - don't worry about why or how, just accept for the exercise it's no longer producing anything. Well, if it's early in the year quite a few farmers across the rest of the US could try planting vegetables instead of corn or wheat or whatever, people could dig up their backyards... you'd get vegetable production that year, but because none of those new fields are optimized to the new crops the yield will be significantly lower then the CCV. Getting production up to what the CCV was putting out, that is what would take years. Certain items will be costly, and the price of almost every vegetable will go up. If the CCV disappears in, say, August the then it will be almost a year before new vegetable production can be established.

Fruits are more problematic - most require some years to establish an orchard or berry farm, and the climate in which many grow are limited to only the most southern reaches of the US. Fruit will get much more expensive, and may be hard to find for a couple years, but it will decentralize. Citrus will be the most difficult problem, we'll wind up importing more of it (and god help us if Florida gets hit during that time period - it's about the only other place suitable for commercial citrus in the US other than Hawaii - yeah, transportation costs are a bitch). Others such as apples, plums, cherries, etc. can be grown pretty much everywhere in the lower 48, just not quite a productively.

(This same exercise can also be done for meat producers - they concentrated mainly because transportation was so cheap it because expedient to aim for efficiencies found in large scale production rather than smaller, scattered producers with less transportation cost. Grain is not so problematic - corn, wheat, barley, and rye are grown over very extensive areas in the US. It would only be a hit for rice (which probably could be grown more places, but isn't) and specialty grains.)

So, yes, we could massively decentralize food production in the US. Food would just cost more per unit, and there will be between one and, say, 10 years before we enjoy the quantity we had before.

[Simon_Jester]

Um.

"Somewhat" is based on the idea that we're not engaged in drastic measures to do this, which means it would be gradual, the sort of thing people not tracking agricultural policy wouldn't really notice until it was pointed out to them "hey, did you notice how many more apple orchards we have around here these days than when you were a kid?"

Also, of course, my usual weirdness of speech.

And I think my real point stands- it wouldn't be a fast process, and taxing fuel consumption before we'd gotten around to fixing the problem of centralized food production wouldn't have the desired effect- it's more likely that fuel consumption stays relatively constant and the cost of the tax comes out of commodity prices.

[Broomstick]

The 'walking' solution simply has a time constraint with it. Walking three miles to the grocery store with a handcart means spending about an hour each way (unless you can jog with a handcart, an feat I wouldn't care to try and duplicate). You can do that, but not every day, not unless you're a professional domestic who spends literally all day doing nothing but the chores associated to maintaining a household.

Why would you need to go every day?. The handcarts I'm talking about hold about as much as a grocery store trolley. When I lived in Chicago I'd take my handcart on the bus with me (folded on the way to the store, filled on the way back) and usually only had to shop once a week.

Biking works. It's a lot more practical than walking, and we can readily (and should) modify with an eye to that. I think we're already seeing that trend, it's just low-profile and hasn't really broken out into universality.

It's not just that - in many places the roads are structured that it is not safe to use a bike, yet those are the only means to get to and from the store. But yes, I'd like to see much more use of bicycles for errand running.

Also, is long distance trucking really faster than long distance rail? I've had the opposite experience as a passenger- I can entrain in Washington, D.C. and be in Los Angeles in three days; driving it requires five days unless you've got metaphorical balls of steel. Granted, truckers are famous for long driving days, but you've got to sleep some time, and a train can keep going more or less continuously.

So can trucks - those driving across the continent use teams of drivers, and have a sleeper cab that's probably bigger than my first apartment (seriously - I know some truckers, I'm talking queen-size beds, kitchenettes, wardrobe area, TVs...) One guy drives why the other two are off duty, one perhaps sleeping in the back of the cab. The truck never stops moving. Trucks also can take more direct routes in some instances, and can detour around blockages in the highway system in a way railroads can't.

The chief advantages of rail are that you can move a greater quantity of stuff using less fuel and fewer people. Sometimes it may match the speed of a truck, but not always, so you need stuff that can afford to take a little longer to get there.

Then again there's switching and whatnot- passenger trains may travel "express" or "limited" between two points, but freight probably won't.

Actually, in the US freight trains are given priority over passenger trains.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would you need to go every day?. The handcarts I'm talking about hold about as much as a grocery store trolley. When I lived in Chicago I'd take my handcart on the bus with me (folded on the way to the store, filled on the way back) and usually only had to shop once a week.

Excuse me. I was unclear.

You don't need to go grocery shopping every day. But traveling 'to the store' (some store, any store) is a fairly routine need; it's not just grocery shopping, not if you have a home to keep up. The average number of trips is likely to add up to more than one per week, I would think.

We could go back to the 19th century model of one-stop shopping at the general store... but we'd need a lot more general stores, with a certain minimum density of general stores per person. At which point traveling three miles from your house to the store starts to become a non-issue, as it would be for someone living in a 19th century small town.

Or we could (as we to some extent already do) use really big general stores in "big box" retail, have fewer general stores per person... and now the average distances open up again to where it becomes less practical to make the trip at all, and the time constraint becomes an issue again.

I honestly don't think it makes sense for us to reconfigure non-urban shopping in the US with an eye to traveling several miles on foot per shopping trip.

Biking works. It's a lot more practical than walking, and we can readily (and should) modify with an eye to that. I think we're already seeing that trend, it's just low-profile and hasn't really broken out into universality.

It's not just that - in many places the roads are structured that it is not safe to use a bike, yet those are the only means to get to and from the store. But yes, I'd like to see much more use of bicycles for errand running.

My impression is that bike lanes, bike racks, and the like are more common now than they were ten or fifteen years ago, and that the American car culture is actually a bit weaker than it was decades ago.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Also, is long distance trucking really faster than long distance rail? I've had the opposite experience as a passenger- I can entrain in Washington, D.C. and be in Los Angeles in three days; driving it requires five days unless you've got metaphorical balls of steel. Granted, truckers are famous for long driving days, but you've got to sleep some time, and a train can keep going more or less continuously.

So can trucks - those driving across the continent use teams of drivers, and have a sleeper cab that's probably bigger than my first apartment (seriously - I know some truckers, I'm talking queen-size beds, kitchenettes, wardrobe area, TVs...) One guy drives why the other two are off duty, one perhaps sleeping in the back of the cab. The truck never stops moving. Trucks also can take more direct routes in some instances, and can detour around blockages in the highway system in a way railroads can't.

The chief advantages of rail are that you can move a greater quantity of stuff using less fuel and fewer people. Sometimes it may match the speed of a truck, but not always, so you need stuff that can afford to take a little longer to get there.

Then again there's switching and whatnot- passenger trains may travel "express" or "limited" between two points, but freight probably won't.

Actually, in the US freight trains are given priority over passenger trains.[/quote]

[Thanas]

Why would you need to go every day?. The handcarts I'm talking about hold about as much as a grocery store trolley. When I lived in Chicago I'd take my handcart on the bus with me (folded on the way to the store, filled on the way back) and usually only had to shop once a week.

Excuse me. I was unclear.

You don't need to go grocery shopping every day. But traveling 'to the store' (some store, any store) is a fairly routine need; it's not just grocery shopping, not if you have a home to keep up. The average number of trips is likely to add up to more than one per week, I would think.

We could go back to the 19th century model of one-stop shopping at the general store... but we'd need a lot more general stores, with a certain minimum density of general stores per person. At which point traveling three miles from your house to the store starts to become a non-issue, as it would be for someone living in a 19th century small town.

I wonder how Europe ever manages not following the 19th century model....

[Broomstick]

You don't need to go grocery shopping every day. But traveling 'to the store' (some store, any store) is a fairly routine need; it's not just grocery shopping, not if you have a home to keep up. The average number of trips is likely to add up to more than one per week, I would think.

Well, even now, quite a few stores will deliver large items for you. Back in the day, people used a mix of multiple trips and store deliveries.

We could go back to the 19th century model of one-stop shopping at the general store... but we'd need a lot more general stores, with a certain minimum density of general stores per person.

Actually, I think we call those "Wal-Mart" now....

Or we could (as we to some extent already do) use really big general stores in "big box" retail, have fewer general stores per person... and now the average distances open up again to where it becomes less practical to make the trip at all, and the time constraint becomes an issue again.

I honestly don't think it makes sense for us to reconfigure non-urban shopping in the US with an eye to traveling several miles on foot per shopping trip.

I disagree - in fact, that's the way it used to be before the car became ubiquitous.

OK, let's take the example of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart could, in fact, be more open to non-auto traffic. I know this, because just a little ways east of me are Wal-Mart stores with a significant Amish customer base. How significant? The Wal-Marts have two parking lots, one for autos/trucks and one for horse-and-buggies. Why do they do that? Enough customers don't drive cars, so they accommodate them.

So.... why not a Wal-Mart more accommodating to bicycle traffic? A separate parking area for bikes, and a means to secure them while your in the store? Would take up less space than horse-and-buggies, and fewer piles of horseshit to clean up as well.

Of course, that does get back to social changes people just don't want to make....

Biking works. It's a lot more practical than walking, and we can readily (and should) modify with an eye to that. I think we're already seeing that trend, it's just low-profile and hasn't really broken out into universality.

It's not just that - in many places the roads are structured that it is not safe to use a bike, yet those are the only means to get to and from the store. But yes, I'd like to see much more use of bicycles for errand running.

My impression is that bike lanes, bike racks, and the like are more common now than they were ten or fifteen years ago, and that the American car culture is actually a bit weaker than it was decades ago.

Well, yes and no.

Up until the 1970's there was a LOT more bike traffic in the US. Biking to the store for mom was something kids in suburbia did, and a lot of stores had bike racks to park your bikes. We have fewer bike lanes, but more sidewalks which amounted to much the same thing.

During the 80's and 90's you saw a reduction in bike-friendliness. A very steep one.

We're sort of getting back to bike friendly but not nearly as much as even as late as the 1970's. In my opinion and experience.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Broomstick the hand cart idea for pedestrians is feasible, but how exactly are you going to make bicycles viable as a means of transporting groceries/goods from the store? Most people I know make a weekly trip to the grocery store and have at least a shopping cart's worth of groceries/goods. Transporting that much is doable with a hand cart, but I'm not sure that's possible with a bicycle, at least not without attaching some kind of trailer which adds its own issues. Occasionally you'll see Amish at the local Wal-Mart in my area as well, though they make monthly trips just like some people in more rural areas and thus have larger loads. Time is also a major factor in modern life, more so I'd say than in the past, and I'm not sure you're going to be able get people to change over to a more time consuming system like making multiple trips on foot/bike.

I also would like to point out a safety consideration with pedestrian and even bike traffic. It is far easier to mug someone on foot/bicycle than those in a vehicle. It is very easy to spend $200+ for a weeks worth of groceries for a family of 4, granted there are non cash means to buy stuff, and I can't help but wander if people on their way to the store would become the new preferred mugging targets. Foot traffic certainly increases the area that someone can more easily become a victim in (at least compared to automobile traffic), and the police can only protect a certain amount of territory at any given time.

[aerius]

Broomstick the hand cart idea for pedestrians is feasible, but how exactly are you going to make bicycles viable as a means of transporting groceries/goods from the store?

Humans invented cargo bikes for a reason.
You can haul a pretty good load of groceries with one of those bikes.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick the hand cart idea for pedestrians is feasible, but how exactly are you going to make bicycles viable as a means of transporting groceries/goods from the store?

Apart from the cargo bike linked to, if people still used "utility bikes" (like I do) instead of racing bikes with razor thin wheels, they'd be able to attach a cargo rack (like I have on my bike) or saddle bags and be able to transport as much on a bike as with a hand cart.

Transporting that much is doable with a hand cart, but I'm not sure that's possible with a bicycle, at least not without attaching some kind of trailer which adds its own issues.

Trailer not required if the bike is properly equipped. But there are bike trailers available if people really want them. Most typically you see them as a device to transport children while the parent is biking, but you can get cargo models, too. I don't see where this is as difficult as you make it out to be.

Time is also a major factor in modern life, more so I'd say than in the past, and I'm not sure you're going to be able get people to change over to a more time consuming system like making multiple trips on foot/bike.

Then they'll have to pay for the privilege of doing things fast.

I also would like to point out a safety consideration with pedestrian and even bike traffic. It is far easier to mug someone on foot/bicycle than those in a vehicle.

And do you think people don't get mugged for grocery money now? In the parking lot, in the store, at an intersection when they stop for a traffic light.

[The Kernel]

Or we could, maybe, make it more feasible for people to walk that 3 miles because a healthy adult should have no problem doing that, with a handcart for purchases (I used to do that, and still own not one but two such handcarts). Or people could start riding bicycles - mine already has a cargo rack on it. Wouldn't work for all purchases, of course, but there, for instance, sidewalks or bike lanes around here I could have done today's grocery shopping on my bike instead of using my car. Except there is nowhere to park a bike at the Aldi's.

This may be hard to believe since you live in the midwest but some of us live in areas with actual hills. There is no fucking way I'm going 3 miles up and down the inclines of the Santa Cruz mountains with a goddamn shopping cart.

It would, of course, require a significant social change in the US, or actually several: the notion people can walk or bike to the store instead of drive, modifying roads to make that easier, and most importantly, for US drivers to accept that pedestrians and bicyclists have as much right to use the roads as cars instead of viewing them as targets to be run off the road or worse.

The same argument could be made for powered motorcycles or scooters which are way more efficient than cars. You know why people don't want to use them? Because they are fucking deathtraps as long as automobiles are on the road and I don't hear any serious proposal to change that.

Simply saying "accept that pedestrians and bicyclists have as much right to use the roads as cars" sounds good but I'd like to hear a serious plan to make it happen, otherwise it's a pipe dream. No one is going to use alternate forms of transportation that have a 20x greater likelyhood of killing you than already dangerous automobile transportation.

[The Kernel]

You know what will fix urban sprawl? Higher gas prices. Raise the price of gasoline and people will move together. Squeezed, strapped families will maneuver themselves to become less squeezed and less strapped, and in the process will reconfigure society to be more efficient.

No it won't. Even with a 40 mile daily commute, it only costs me less than 2 gallons of gas which is around $8. Even if you were to triple fuel prices it wouldn't make a dent in my driving habits, all it would do is piss me off and have me buy a more fuel efficient car.

The only people who would be hurt by this are people who are living on the edge to begin with. A more progressive system funded by taxation and shared pain makes much more sense and would distribute the pain among the wealthy as well as those less fortunate.

Except that this is costly to the government,

No one said going green was cheap, but subsidies for energy efficiency have payoffs in the longer run.

costly to the auto industry

Only because it forces them to sell more fuel efficient cars that don't have the markups of SUVs. I'd call that a win.

and the effect of the standard is partially mitigated by people driving further.

Provide evidence of this. Gas prices change driving habits but not to a serious degree.

See here

Raise the price of gasoline by taxing it, however, and - as if by magic - you get cars with better fuel mileage, hybrids, electric cars, fewer miles driven, and a more dense population. Oh, yes, and the government doesn't have to spend money forcing the auto companies to obey the CAFE standards; instead, it gets extra money from the higher gasoline tax. Win, win, win, and win.

What you are forgetting is that there are elements of the economy that rely on gasoline for things beyond just personal transportation. You will get the same effect by doing this...along with a ton of other unintended consequences.

[aerius]

This may be hard to believe since you live in the midwest but some of us live in areas with actual hills. There is no fucking way I'm going 3 miles up and down the inclines of the Santa Cruz mountains with a goddamn shopping cart.

HTFU ya big wuss!

Up at my friend's cottage there's a hill that's nearly a mile long with a 10% grade between us and the store. We've made food & liquor runs on our utility bikes up & down that hill, yeah it sucks ass when you're dragging a 24 up the hill but it sure feels good when you crack one open upon arriving.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder how Europe ever manages not following the 19th century model....

Higher population density than all but a relative minority of areas of the US, and infrastructure that evolved accordingly.

We evolved in a different direction, and now we're stuck trying to figure out how to extract ourselves from the problem we're wedged in.

We could go back to the 19th century model of one-stop shopping at the general store... but we'd need a lot more general stores, with a certain minimum density of general stores per person.

Actually, I think we call those "Wal-Mart" now....

This is what I said about "big boxes." But a big box is only profitable when it sells to a certain number of people, and when you plop them down in a lot of places, aren't you going to get trips that are even longer than "walk an hour each way?"

Inside the cities, you can do this, yes. If people are sufficiently determined, you can do this, yes. It is far from impossible to spend an hour going to the store each way. I am not such a fool as to not understand this. However, it does impact the desirability of living in places where you'd have to do so, which is going to affect housing patterns- if it didn't, the "food deserts" you talk about wouldn't exist or wouldn't be a problem if they did.

I disagree - in fact, that's the way it used to be before the car became ubiquitous.

OK, let's take the example of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart could, in fact, be more open to non-auto traffic. I know this, because just a little ways east of me are Wal-Mart stores with a significant Amish customer base. How significant? The Wal-Marts have two parking lots, one for autos/trucks and one for horse-and-buggies. Why do they do that? Enough customers don't drive cars, so they accommodate them.

So.... why not a Wal-Mart more accommodating to bicycle traffic? A separate parking area for bikes, and a means to secure them while your in the store? Would take up less space than horse-and-buggies, and fewer piles of horseshit to clean up as well.

For bicycles, it works fine, you'll get no argument from me on bicycles.

It's walking that presents a problem, unless you either depopulate certain suburban areas, or concentrate them into lots of little mini-cities that can be profitably served by a general store within walking distance. Either of which you can do, but it won't happen overnight, which ties back into the original issue of what happens when you start taxing gas heavily.

People who live an inconvenient distance from shopping and jobs will have to move- to places better served by mass transit, to more crowded housing closer to shopping and jobs They can do this, I know; it's simply a cost of doing it that has to be factored in.

At the same time, as you say, the US transportation network (based on the assumption of cheap fuel for transcontinental transport) gets hit with cost increases that make cost of living more expensive even for the people who aren't going to have to move to save money on fuel.

I mean... am I just completely off-base here for some reason I'm not getting?

Well, yes and no.

Up until the 1970's there was a LOT more bike traffic in the US. Biking to the store for mom was something kids in suburbia did, and a lot of stores had bike racks to park your bikes. We have fewer bike lanes, but more sidewalks which amounted to much the same thing.

During the 80's and 90's you saw a reduction in bike-friendliness. A very steep one.

We're sort of getting back to bike friendly but not nearly as much as even as late as the 1970's. In my opinion and experience.

That explains it.

[Lord Zentei]

The only people who would be hurt by this are people who are living on the edge to begin with. A more progressive system funded by taxation and shared pain makes much more sense and would distribute the pain among the wealthy as well as those less fortunate.

It wouldn't make more sense, since that would be subsidizing bad behavior, in this case encouraging people to spend money on fuel inefficiently. Pain is there for a reason, i.e. to tell us to change our behavior, regardless of whether you spread it or not.

Instead:

• The solution for people is: car pool more often.
• The solution for government is: encourage investments in railways.

[The Kernel]

It wouldn't make more sense, since that would be subsidizing bad behavior, in this case encouraging people to spend money on fuel inefficiently. Pain is there for a reason, i.e. to tell us to change our behavior, regardless of whether you spread it or not.

Explain to me how the fuck the government subsidizing increased CAFE standards and electric cars encourages people to spend money on fuel inefficiently.

[*]The solution for government is: encourage investments in railways.[/list]

You've got to be fucking shitting me. Rail works great in certain situations, but it's not going to be cost effective in urban sprawl situations. Rail only works for commuting when you have densely packed areas where it is easy to put a honeycomb of lines and stops in convenient locations, it helps fuck all in the suburbs.

[Lord Zentei]

Explain to me how the fuck the government subsidizing increased CAFE standards and electric cars encourages people to spend money on fuel inefficiently.

You didn't specify that you were speaking about electric cars. Your post was made in direct response to a comment regarding fuel prices, so that wasn't terribly clear.

You've got to be fucking shitting me. Rail works great in certain situations, but it's not going to be cost effective in urban sprawl situations. Rail only works for commuting when you have densely packed areas where it is easy to put a honeycomb of lines and stops in convenient locations, it helps fuck all in the suburbs.

Really? Tram cars count as rail. More importantly, much of people's daily commute is from suburbs to their workplaces miles if not dozens of miles away, so even if people still used cars to hop between the railway station and their homes, they're still saving fuel.

[Broomstick]

This may be hard to believe since you live in the midwest but some of us live in areas with actual hills. There is no fucking way I'm going 3 miles up and down the inclines of the Santa Cruz mountains with a goddamn shopping cart.

Believe it or not, I have, in my lifetime, lived in areas with hills and even mountains. If you don't like the bicycle solution come up with one more suited to your location.

It would, of course, require a significant social change in the US, or actually several: the notion people can walk or bike to the store instead of drive, modifying roads to make that easier, and most importantly, for US drivers to accept that pedestrians and bicyclists have as much right to use the roads as cars instead of viewing them as targets to be run off the road or worse.

The same argument could be made for powered motorcycles or scooters which are way more efficient than cars. You know why people don't want to use them? Because they are fucking deathtraps as long as automobiles are on the road and I don't hear any serious proposal to change that.

Oh, absolutely, motorcycles and scooters could serve the same function. I also assume they could even be converted to alternative fuels if necessary, or possibly electric battery. But around here it's not just the "deathtrap" problem of being hit by other vehicles - open vehicles like motorcycles and scooters (and bikes for that matter) aren't very practical in the winter around here. Just too fucking cold, not to mention the ice and snow. Still, if people could use bikes more for 8 months of the year that would help.

Another solution that might help would be rules allowing jitney services and small-scale car for hire services, essentially a commercialized form of car-pooling.

No one is going to use alternate forms of transportation that have a 20x greater likelyhood of killing you than already dangerous automobile transportation.

Of course, the irony here is that it's the stupidity of the humans allegedly in charge of these vehicles that accounts for most of the danger.

[Broomstick]

You've got to be fucking shitting me. Rail works great in certain situations, but it's not going to be cost effective in urban sprawl situations. Rail only works for commuting when you have densely packed areas where it is easy to put a honeycomb of lines and stops in convenient locations, it helps fuck all in the suburbs.

Right, that's why a big city like Chicago, the commuter trains all stop at the city border. Oh wait - they don't stop at the city lines. Chicago commuter rail extends not only into Illinois suburbs but all the way into Wisconsin and (via the South Bend and South Shore Railway) Indiana. I utilized the system to get to work for 24 years, over 40 miles each way during the time I lived in Indiana and worked in the Loop, and still take it into Chicago from time to time. Parts of the system date back to the 1890's, so it's not like it's a recent miracle.

[mr friendly guy]

How about the electric bike?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bike

Basically uses less fuel than an automobile.

Germany seems to be getting interested.

Of course China has been using it for somewhat longer. Australia and Canada also use it to a limited extent. We can learn from the China experience (or bad experiences) and move from there. Basically you will need

a. a bicycle lane so you don't compete with automobiles (some countries like China, Australia etc already have such a lane)

b. Limit the speed of these E-bikes. Mandate that if they go faster than a certain speed they get classed like an automobile and have to go out of the bicycle lane. The problem in China is some genius thought, lets have a more powerful engine on the E-bikes, and have increased the speed till its not safe in the bicycle lane, leading some cities to ban it. I think my solution manages to get the best of both worlds.

c. I would suggest funding money into research so they switch to a Li ion battery rather than their current engines, but I hear other countries are researching this, so it may simply be easier to import.

[Surlethe]

You know what will fix urban sprawl? Higher gas prices. Raise the price of gasoline and people will move together. Squeezed, strapped families will maneuver themselves to become less squeezed and less strapped, and in the process will reconfigure society to be more efficient.

No it won't. Even with a 40 mile daily commute, it only costs me less than 2 gallons of gas which is around $8. Even if you were to triple fuel prices it wouldn't make a dent in my driving habits, all it would do is piss me off and have me buy a more fuel efficient car.

The only people who would be hurt by this are people who are living on the edge to begin with. A more progressive system funded by taxation and shared pain makes much more sense and would distribute the pain among the wealthy as well as those less fortunate.

You're repeating what I said but using different words: the squeezed, strapped families will maneuver themselves to become less squeezed and strapped, making society more efficient. And I'm not seeing how soaking the people like you who are rich enough to not change their habits as much doesn't count as a progressive system of taxation.

Except that this is costly to the government,

No one said going green was cheap, but subsidies for energy efficiency have payoffs in the longer run.

And I'm claiming that a Pigovian gas (or more generally, carbon) tax gives almost all of the benefits of energy efficiency regulation and subsidization while increasing government revenue and decreasing the cost to the government (hence to society) of specifying and enforcing regulations and subsidies.

costly to the auto industry

Only because it forces them to sell more fuel efficient cars that don't have the markups of SUVs. I'd call that a win.

And they spend time and money trying to find loopholes in the regulations, people who want SUVs will try to find loopholes in the regulations, the government has to spend time and money finding the people who are looking for loopholes in the regulation and close the regulation, sometimes the businesses will just say "fuck it" and pay the fines (in which case the legislation hasn't even worked), and so on. And that's not even counting that the automakers (their shareholders) are losing out on the profits. (I know, fuck the rich, but that still counts as a cost to the automakers, their employees, the pensioners who are invested in them, the people who count on the automakers for employment, and so on.)

and the effect of the standard is partially mitigated by people driving further.

Provide evidence of this. Gas prices change driving habits but not to a serious degree.

See here

Your chart actually supports my contention that driving habits respond to price changes: miles driven has fallen for more than half a decade. Recall also the second law of demand: if gas prices stay high for an extended period of time -- are expected to stay high -- demand elasticity rises. Meanwhile, to support that the effect of CAFE standards are partially mitigated by people driving further, I need to only remark that no real-world supply of a good is totally inelastic on the scale of decades, which is the relevant timescale for CAFE standards.

Raise the price of gasoline by taxing it, however, and - as if by magic - you get cars with better fuel mileage, hybrids, electric cars, fewer miles driven, and a more dense population. Oh, yes, and the government doesn't have to spend money forcing the auto companies to obey the CAFE standards; instead, it gets extra money from the higher gasoline tax. Win, win, win, and win.

What you are forgetting is that there are elements of the economy that rely on gasoline for things beyond just personal transportation. You will get the same effect by doing this...along with a ton of other unintended consequences.[/quote]
Of course there are; they need fixing too. I'm not denying that there are secondary effects, I'm claiming that those ripples are also society moving toward a more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly configuration.

Those elements of the economy are the way they are because they're not bearing the full consequences of their decisions with regard to carbon emissions, and they're going to change anyway as oil production falls off over the next few decades. Spreading out that change over time -- and requiring that people actually bear the costs of their decisions -- can only make society as a whole better off.

(Edit: forgot to respond to a point.)

[The Kernel]

Right, that's why a big city like Chicago, the commuter trains all stop at the city border. Oh wait - they don't stop at the city lines. Chicago commuter rail extends not only into Illinois suburbs but all the way into Wisconsin and (via the South Bend and South Shore Railway) Indiana. I utilized the system to get to work for 24 years, over 40 miles each way during the time I lived in Indiana and worked in the Loop, and still take it into Chicago from time to time. Parts of the system date back to the 1890's, so it's not like it's a recent miracle.

And in the Bay Area we have CalTrain and BART which extend far beyond the city limits...but they are only useful for commuting if you do the park-and-ride thing or just happen to live right near a station. Mass transit into heavily populated suburbs is useful for moving INTO major metro areas, it's not designed to service traffic within those areas.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it only alleviates the commute issue and doesn't do anything to solve the need for a car. If you ask your average person in a major city like Chicago, they might very well not have a car thanks to the good mass transit. But outside the city limits? You won't find that to be common.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Fair enough regarding the other issues Broomstick, however I would like to address the last one regarding mugging. Certainly people get mugged currently in stores/parking lots and at intersections, my concern is that you're exposing people for a greater amount of time and over a larger area than previously. You can lessen the likelyhood of mugging in stores and parking lots with hired security, something that is becoming more common, and other methods like good lighting and security cameras. There isn't much that can be done at intersections to actually prevent a crime save having an officer present which is highly impractical, but most intersections have fairly short traffic lights (certainly no longer than a couple of minutes). My concern is that a person is in potential danger for a longer period of time walking than they otherwise would be. You're vulnerable for a longer period of time and over a much larger area walking at ~3-5 mph the entire trip than you are in a vehicle traveling 20+ mph that only stops occasionally. Sure, they could jump in front of a moving vehicle to get you to stop, but I would think most thieves recognize the obvious problem with that approach, and other methods such as debris on the road or animals running across are not guaranteed to cause someone to slow down enough (or at all depending on the person) to make a mugging possible. I should note that I am looking at this from a suburban perspective.

[The Kernel]

You're repeating what I said but using different words: the squeezed, strapped families will maneuver themselves to become less squeezed and strapped, making society more efficient. And I'm not seeing how soaking the people like you who are rich enough to not change their habits as much doesn't count as a progressive system of taxation.

Ok, let's explore this a little bit then so I understand what you are arguing for. How much would you propose increasing fuel taxes and over what period of time?

If we are going to look at how realistic your social engineering is put some real numbers to it.

And I'm claiming that a Pigovian gas (or more generally, carbon) tax gives almost all of the benefits of energy efficiency regulation and subsidization while increasing government revenue and decreasing the cost to the government (hence to society) of specifying and enforcing regulations and subsidies.

Except that it penalizes economic activity instead of rewarding economic activity that is environmentally friendly. So if you end up suppressing economic activity then your net tax revenues fall and you end up with lower net tax receipts. Subsidies may cost more money upfront but they have the same effect as punitive taxation without any of the economic fallout.

And they spend time and money trying to find loopholes in the regulations, people who want SUVs will try to find loopholes in the regulations, the government has to spend time and money finding the people who are looking for loopholes in the regulation and close the regulation, sometimes the businesses will just say "fuck it" and pay the fines (in which case the legislation hasn't even worked), and so on. And that's not even counting that the automakers (their shareholders) are losing out on the profits. (I know, fuck the rich, but that still counts as a cost to the automakers, their employees, the pensioners who are invested in them, the people who count on the automakers for employment, and so on.)

This is just meandering rhetoric with zero in the way of specifics. It's also a scare tactic that the auto industry loves to use to convince legislators that CAFE standards are a waste of time.

Look what has happened in the last few years as CAFE standards have been raised. We have seen a general push towards more efficient engine technologies (turbocharging, direct-injection) and a move away from larger displacement engines. Weight savings has also become a serious consideration for car makers.

The net effect of this is that cars haven't changed much, but the automakers have been forced into implementing more efficiency in their designs. Granted that there is a lot of low hanging fruit that is being picked right now, but that is EXACTLY THE POINT. They could have built cars this efficient years ago but didn't because no one was forcing them to.

I'd say the current trend in automotive design pretty much puts a bullet into your argument that regulation is ineffective in resolving this issue.

Your chart actually supports my contention that driving habits respond to price changes: miles driven has fallen for more than half a decade. Recall also the second law of demand: if gas prices stay high for an extended period of time -- are expected to stay high -- demand elasticity rises. Meanwhile, to support that the effect of CAFE standards are partially mitigated by people driving further, I need to only remark that no real-world supply of a good is totally inelastic on the scale of decades, which is the relevant timescale for CAFE standards.

You obviously didn't read that chart very carefully. During the energy crisis of the late 70s, gas prices doubled overnight and yet the amount of miles being driven by Americans kept growing at a steady rate.

The only data point you have that suggests gas prices and miles driven are even related is the 2000-2010 period where miles driven leveled off and dropped slightly but it was less than 10% despite increases in fuel prices of 2x. I'd hardly call that a massive achievement for the taxation argument.

Clearly if you want to deter Americans from driving, these statistics show you'd have to REALLY tax the shit out of fuel and artificially raise the price at least another 200%-300%. Is that what you are suggesting?

Of course there are; they need fixing too. I'm not denying that there are secondary effects, I'm claiming that those ripples are also society moving toward a more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly configuration.

Those elements of the economy are the way they are because they're not bearing the full consequences of their decisions with regard to carbon emissions, and they're going to change anyway as oil production falls off over the next few decades. Spreading out that change over time -- and requiring that people actually bear the costs of their decisions -- can only make society as a whole better off.

(Edit: forgot to respond to a point.)

I agree, but I disagree that during a period of economic recession that punitive taxation on activities that provide positive economic growth are a good idea. If you really want to do social engineering like this, subsidies and regulation have proven just as effective without any of the economic damage that punitive taxation does. In fact they can even spur greater economic development through investment in new technologies.