Yes, it probably would

Post #322,269 by drook 3/3/10 9:47:26 AM Reply	Yes, it probably would We currently pay 77% of the worldwide average for gas: http://www.nationmas...ine-prices?=-1%29, Look at who has it cheaper than us: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Romania ... The only major economies on that list that have cheaper gas than we do are China and Russia. Russia produces their own, and China buys from everyone we've pissed off. If gas cost more, we would rearrange the way we live to favor mass transit and higher-density living. Yes, that would cause a problem for people raised to believe the American Dream was a house in the suburbs with a large yard and a 2 1/2 car garage. -- Drew
Post #322,272 by boxley 3/3/10 10:00:01 AM Reply	My american dream involved a roof and regular meals the fact that there is no public transport in rural areas and most of the US is rural doesnt change because you tell everyone to move to the big city. The big cities dont want poor people. They make it very clear. If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,274 by drook 3/3/10 10:18:49 AM Reply	Rural is fine. Urban is fine. Suburbs are the problem. Suburbs are the reason everything is designed around cars now. And cars are the reason suburbs are practical. (Chicken and egg.) And that system only works when you've got cheap gas. We keep spending general fund money to keep driving cheap. That's going to keep working right up until someone else wants the gas as much as we do, and China is coming on strong. When there's more demand than supply, things will go pear shaped in a hurry. Economies that depend on cheap gas will be hurt first and most. Hell, we can't even grow and distribute food without huge inputs of fossil fuels. Most of us (in the suburbs) can't get to work without cars, and there are no public transit options to switch to. -- Drew
Post #322,308 by static 3/3/10 5:28:19 PM Reply	Aussie Dream was similar. At the moment, Sydney is the most expensive place in Au to try to fulfill that dream. Especially as for many people, it means a 70 minute commute. In a car. Or 90 mixed mode. Ouch. Having lived (briefly) in a house on a largish block with 2 cars et al... no, I don't want that. It's too much work, and it's too much money. To do that effectively means moving away from the city. Problem is, my job is (currently) in the city. I'm happy with a 40 minute train journey, so what works for me is a unit or townhouse within walking distance of an outer-suburb railway station. That way I spend even less on petrol because the car isn't used most days. :-) Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #322,310 by drook 3/3/10 7:06:15 PM Reply	If only we had decent rail coverage Or even good bus connections. And I'm not talking about out here in the suburbs. There's a total of 2 train stops in downtown Cleveland, and one of them is at a Park-and-Ride lot. Yes, that's right. You can drive all the way downtown to park in a lot, from which you can then take a train the last quarter-mile into the city. And let's not talk about the fact that most of the outlying stations are located in neighborhoods where you wouldn't want to leave your car unattended all day, nor come back to late at night. Trains are for poor people, donchya know. Why would middle-class people care about access to a train? -- Drew
Post #322,323 by static 3/3/10 9:19:04 PM Reply	I hear ya. A lot of car-oriented urbanisation has largely taught its residents that you use the train when there is little or no other choice. That varies from parking in the city being too expensive (i.e. commuters) from simply not having a car (i.e. the less well-off). Travel outside peak hour and the variety of travellers can be disturbing. I also saw it when I got long-distance trains in the US: many patrons were those further down the economic scale than the average. I think cities like Cleveland have an additional problem. It's local government reluctance to invest in public transport. It's even more obvious in Detroit (look at a map!). Or ask Greg about Grand Rapids: plenty of rail, yet no commuter stations. WTF? Sydney has a subtly different problem: there once were people who championed rail et al, and had some significant successes. We one had one of the largest tram networks in the world, for instance. But for too long, successive governments look short term with no vision or recognition of long-term need. We had a visionary in John Bradfield http://en.wikipedia....adfield_(engineer) - we need another one and there's just no-one in Macquarie Street like that. Wade. P.S. I couldn't make the weecode to do a URL work. :-( Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #322,342 by drook 3/4/10 10:04:28 AM Reply	They even passed a law in Cleveland once By referendum, the people said they wanted a subway built from Tower City (downtown) to University Hospital (several miles south-east). But the county engineer preferred freeways, so he tied it up in red tape until after the next election and the whole thing just died. There are pages and pages of plans for subways in Cleveland, but the most amazing part is that there used to be one. It was supposed to be the first phase. But it ran on the lower deck of a bridge. And the upper deck was getting a lot of traffic. So the county engineer (yes, the same one) had the tracks ripped out and paved the lower deck to relieve congestion. http://www.urbanohio....php?topic=2726.0 Cars kept crashing into the support piers, so the lower deck was sealed. Yes, they killed the subway to relieve congestion on one bridge, and it didn't even work. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!