Why gas prices are not bearly high enough

[dmclone]

Originally Posted by EggMcClone

I've always thought it would make a lot of sense to set up high speed trains between all of the major cities like they have in Europe. Yeah, you'd have to subsidize it but there are a lot of hidden subsidies for air and car travel that could offset some of the costs.

The current model of our cities and suburbs really isn't sustainable for the future without changes like more public transportation.

One reason why this doesn't work is because of the distance between U.S. cities. Cities in Europe are close together. Anything more than 3-400 miles and people are going to fly instead. There are places in the U.S. where it would make sense but the midwest is probably not one of them.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by EggMcClone

I've always thought it would make a lot of sense to set up high speed trains between all of the major cities like they have in Europe. Yeah, you'd have to subsidize it but there are a lot of hidden subsidies for air and car travel that could offset some of the costs.

The current model of our cities and suburbs really isn't sustainable for the future without changes like more public transportation.

From a recently published Cato Institute paper....

"Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets."

"Even where rail transit operations save a little energy, the construction of rail transit lines consumes huge amounts of energy and emits large volumes of greenhouse gases. In most cases, many decades of energy savings would be needed to repay the energy cost of construction."

Link:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-615.pdf

[CrossCyed]

Hell, it's dangerous to only go 70 on I35.

[bellzisu]

First off... If you are dumb enough to go only 40 or 45 on an interstate, I'm not going to feel sorry for you if someone runs your butt over. There is a MIN speed limit you have to keep. If you are not up to it then hit a side street, or ride your bike. The closing rate between 60 and 65 is scary. I really don't want to see the rate when its over 20 miles an hour.

Next... High priced gas is going to do one thing.... Put this country into a recession so deep that we may never get out. Seriously, unemployment would be so severe with truck drivers and FARMERS. It wouldn't be funny. High fuel cost would cripple FARMING. Good luck being able to grow your own meat and grain with that.

I love all the snobs on this site. "Oh I drive two miles a day and barely use gas" or "high fuel prices would be great cause things we be more efficient".... Bull crap... If you only drive a few miles a day... Get a damn bike then. Then brag about it. If you only have a couple miles you shouldn't be driving.

I guess I'm pissing cause I'm in the agricultural industry and these fuel prices are killing farmers quicker then the so called corporate farms, or anything else you people complain about.

Without agriculture this state would dry up, and most of the country. Great reason for high fuel costs huh???

[Seth]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Rail transportation was effectively killed in the mid-70s when subsidies were shifted from rail to trucking, via shifts in the way taxes were collected.

That was intentionally designed to provide a "jobs program" for truck drivers. It takes a lot more people to drive truck than it takes to drive train.

Converting the US to Europe is a lot tougher than you might think. And will require a ton of tax dollars to subsidize rail. It costs me $42 for a family ticket to travel the equivalent from Newton to Des Moines, and the gov't, who operates the train, is losing about $40 more in the process.

In addition to 45 mph being dangerous on the interstate, giving "right of way" to a pedestrian who is crossing against the light is even more dangerous. The guy coming the other direction might not, and then the OP would be responsible for the woman and her baby being killed by the legal driver. One of my pet peeves is Iowa drivers who do not understand basic "right of way" rules, and in trying to be "nice", break the law and cause dangerous driving situations.

Iowa drivers, if you HAVE right of way, TAKE right of way. It's not flippin' rocket science.

And keep the heck out of the left lane, unless you can pass in a couple seconds, you passive-aggressive jerks!

Excellent post.

[Wesley]

Again, $10 gas would kill the golden goose. Yes, you can get by on much less. I for one do not waste gas as I ride the bus to work. Yet you would find so many layoffs from loss of need for box stores, banking, fast food franchises, malls, restaurants, dealerships, you would not be able to gainfully employ the current population. I would love to be on wind power if we had real system to store up when the wind would not blow. I would love to telework. I would love to own a Smart car if everyone else drove one. Yet I suggest that the trucks on the interstate hauling the fed ex internet purchase, industry making plastics, tourism, sport games, driving vacations, anyone who flies airlines are the ones using the fuel. Check it out, Jumbopackage. Right now the condos in downtown Omaha only cost $400k to purchase. I think one of the bigger problems is so few people live close to their workplace. Yet, our farmers will still need their fuel to grow crops and construction will need huge quantities. Maybe more items shopuld b barged (like cars) on the major rivers. Maybe we need to build more hydroelectric plants. Something needs to change.


Anyone who says they use only 20 gallons a month of gas probably ignores that everything that comes into their house probably was trucked /shipped from overseas. If horses hauled it like in the olden days, the price of shipping would be horrendous.

[akclone]

I think we should allow the use of golf carts or similar electric vehices on city streets where it is not dangerous. Say only on streets where the speed limit is 25 or less. We can allow the vehicles to cross other streets but thats it.

[EggMcClone]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

From a recently published Cato Institute paper....

"Far from protecting the environment, most rail transit lines use more energy per passenger mile, and many generate more greenhouse gases, than the average passenger automobile. Rail transit provides no guarantee that a city will save energy or meet greenhouse gas targets."

"Even where rail transit operations save a little energy, the construction of rail transit lines consumes huge amounts of energy and emits large volumes of greenhouse gases. In most cases, many decades of energy savings would be needed to repay the energy cost of construction."

Link:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-615.pdf

That was an interesting article but it's really just looking at services within cities. He says that most of the increase comes from feeder bus lines that move relatively few riders. Newer high speed trains are cleaner than most of the ones running today and would definitely be cleaner than air travel.

Also, I think high speed trains would work pretty well in the midwest. A lot of the high speed lines in Europe can be up to 500 miles or so which would be about right for going between say the Twin Cities and Chicago or KC and Denver. The trips would be cheaper than flying and time would compare favorably as well when you consider all of the time spent getting on and off of a plane.

There's no doubt it would be expensive to create but our current system is built on an economic model of cheap gas that isn't coming back so changes will have to be made one way or another.

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by EggMcClone

Also, I think high speed trains would work pretty well in the midwest. A lot of the high speed lines in Europe can be up to 500 miles or so which would be about right for going between say the Twin Cities and Chicago or KC and Denver. The trips would be cheaper than flying and time would compare favorably as well when you consider all of the time spent getting on and off of a plane.

Not convinced. Let's do the math on this. Mileage from MSP to ORD is almost exactly 400 miles. Assuming these trains went at 125 mph, it would take almost 3 and a half hours. Air travel is about an hour and 15 minutes. Round trip on a plane is $600. Unless this train is heavily subsidized, an exclusive route between Minneapolis and Chicago isn't going to be a whole heck of a lot better. I'm not arguing against rails and for airplanes, I rather like the idea of trains. But let's be realistic here - it's not as simple as that or they'd be doing it already. The other thing you've gotta keep in mind is how much of a demand is there for such a service? What kind of use does Amtrak get between Minneapolis and Chicago?

[Chad]

That slow on the interstate...I would run you over
Posted via Mobile Device

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by EggMcClone

That was an interesting article but it's really just looking at services within cities. He says that most of the increase comes from feeder bus lines that move relatively few riders. Newer high speed trains are cleaner than most of the ones running today and would definitely be cleaner than air travel.

Also, I think high speed trains would work pretty well in the midwest. A lot of the high speed lines in Europe can be up to 500 miles or so which would be about right for going between say the Twin Cities and Chicago or KC and Denver. The trips would be cheaper than flying and time would compare favorably as well when you consider all of the time spent getting on and off of a plane.

There's no doubt it would be expensive to create but our current system is built on an economic model of cheap gas that isn't coming back so changes will have to be made one way or another.

You know, I live in Europe, and it is cheaper to fly nearly everywhere, than it is to take the train. Once the train trip gets longer than an hour or so, it's cheaper to take the plane.

The REAL bargains are the car carrier ships. For $50, you can travel nearly everywhere in Europe, and have a nice little room to sleep, as well.

Even with Euro prices with gas, car travel is still much cheaper than train. The only folks who can make the train "work", even with massive subsidies, are those who live in urban centers, and can get away with not owning a car.

[dmclone]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

You know, I live in Europe, and it is cheaper to fly nearly everywhere, than it is to take the train. Once the train trip gets longer than an hour or so, it's cheaper to take the plane.

The REAL bargains are the car carrier ships. For $50, you can travel nearly everywhere in Europe, and have a nice little room to sleep, as well.

Even with Euro prices with gas, car travel is still much cheaper than train. The only folks who can make the train "work", even with massive subsidies, are those who live in urban centers, and can get away with not owning a car.

I was shocked how cheap air travel was in Europe. I paid like $80 to fly from London to Rome.

[iowast8fan]

Originally Posted by Chad

That slow on the interstate...I would run you over
Posted via Mobile Device

Posted via Mobile Device while driving on the interstate?

...seriously though, don't text and drive.

[erikbj]

I think this is good for the economy in the long run...let gas prices go to $4/gallon +. Two things are going to happen, 1. Car companies are going to come out with alternatives so people will buy new cars (example: Honda is leasing hydrogen cars in California, obviously this will be a few years away from mass production and available to everyone. VW is coming out with a new turbo diesel this summer that gets 70 mph and it does not have a "fuel cell" to replace after 6 years like Toyota and honda's Hy-brid).
2. Gas prices in my opinion are short term at these levels. The dollar will strenghten over the next few years and gas will be back to $2 -$2.5 / gallon. But consumers will see what the future will bring if they don't do something now....hence putting pressure on automakers to come out with new ideas. Also consumers will be used to spending $4/gallon on gas and when it goes back down, they will have more disposable cash = better economy.

[candg4ever]

Originally Posted by dmclone

He also thinks that using the A/C is a waste so he rolls his windows down no matter how hot it gets. Once again, I'm willing to bet that I get better gas mileage by having my A/C on.

I saw a mythbusters where they did a controlled comparison in cars that were identical driving at identical speeds around an oval. One car had the a/c on with the windows up, the other had the windows down with the a/c off. I don't remember how far they ran the vehicles, it was a considerable distance though, and there was hardly any difference in gas mileage.