Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: Gasoline Prices

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2497126]You make it sound like it's an easy option for most people to simply pick up and move to the city. I suppose if you toss out quality of life as a factor, and price of property as well, it might be.

    But in the real world where living close to work-centers costs massively more than living in a suburb, and where quality of life in the suburb far far exceeds quality of life in our decrepit crime-filled cities, such a sea-change will simply not happen. Especially if one considers the huge population of Americans that have made huge investments in the process of populating our suburban landscape.

    If anything, as technology advances, I would expect the WORK to move out to the Suburbs, and to abandon our cities. Virtual offices, telecommuting and the future-tech that will repalce them will continue to make "being at the office in the Big City" less and less important.

    One can already see that trend in one of the most valuble and growing areas in America today, Northern Virginia.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not concerned about the suburbs. Many of them are simply extensions of the city limtis anyhow, practically speaking. It's the exurbs that bother me from a planning perspective. They're environmentally reckless and, in almost all cases, terrible land use.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,794
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2497132]And the U.S. military is also one of the biggest investors in alternative tech like solar (which works great in desert-warfare vehicles, btw). It often happens that some of the best civiliant tech breakthroughs come from military research. (This is how the internet started, after all.)[/QUOTE]

    Indeed. Is the military currently investing as much as it can into "alternatives"? Would limiting the military budget significantly force their hands into hastening the inventing process? It would be an exxxxxtremly unpopular move, especially during wartime. But with the Iraqis ramping up their involvement and the possibility of a Dem president...it could happen.

    Mankind's unique ability to think of inventive and economic ways to kill each other has been a major catalyst in newer technologies. Who knows? Perhaps our secretive military is already knocking at the door of alternatives and we just don't know about it yet...

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2497140]I'm not concerned about the suburbs. Many of them are simply extensions of the city limtis anyhow, practically speaking. It's the exurbs that bother me from a planning perspective. They're environmentally reckless and, in almost all cases, terrible land use.[/QUOTE]

    From a "planning" perspective?

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2497184]From a "planning" perspective?[/QUOTE]

    You know, urban and metropolitan planning and the like. Very big field here in Chicago.

  5. #25
    The whole country was built that way, the reason most people dont drive in the bigger cities is because there is no parking. Mass transit is a joke it wouldn't work if it wasn't subsidized.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2497193]You know, urban and metropolitan planning and the like. Very big field here in Chicago.[/QUOTE]

    Like city planners and architects? Fair enough for a city. Just don't see how that relates to ex-urbs when your contention is that, from a "planning" persepctive, ex-urbs are "terrible" land "use" and environmentally reckless. What does that mean, specifically, and from whose "planning" perspective? Surely not the people who paid for the land they own and use in these ex-urbs? I live in a suburb about 15-20 miles south of Boston. I consider my land use to be terrific, especially as I plan for my family's future....

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2497206] Mass transit is a joke it wouldn't work if it wasn't subsidized.[/QUOTE]

    The same can be said of the highway system... or airlines... or US sugar farming etc.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2497254]The same can be said of the highway system... or airlines... or US sugar farming etc.[/QUOTE]

    Highways and bridges are paid for by gas taxes and license fees. If people want to ride the train let them pay the full fair! Same for the rest.

  9. #29
    who cares what tax pays for what benefit - a subsidy is a subsidy. the interstate highway system wouldn't exist without the full support of the federal government.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2497206]The whole country was built that way, the reason most people dont drive in the bigger cities is because there is no parking. Mass transit is a joke it wouldn't work if it wasn't subsidized.[/QUOTE]

    I take mass transit to work every day. It works fine for me.

    Everything is subsidized. If we didn't have cars we wouldn't be in Iraq. How much is that costing us?

  11. #31
    "Here's something that really doesn't work!"

    [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/93/20071107070416!Metro-North_Hudson_Line.jpg[/IMG]

  12. #32
    Mass Transit is an excellent option that I support fully. However, it is a worth knowing and understanding it's financial side.

    For example, your average Commuter Rail agency (such as the fine MTA Genesis locomotive above) recoups only about 50-60% of it's Operational Costs at the Fare Box. That means that the remaining 40-50% of Operational costs must be recovered via Federal/State/Local Subsidy.

    And that is only operational cost, i.e. the cost of running the existing train service from A to B and back each day. That does not include expansion, fleet additions, parking lot growth or tower construction, track additions or any other Capital Improvement costs. Only pure operations. Hence the remaining costs must also be subsidized.

    The average ticket would need to be increased by ~5x to cover the actual costs of commuting. However, such an increase is simply unfeasable in today's marketplace.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2496897]That was one of the best responses to this issue that I have seen.

    Now get ready for the corporate apologists to post soon and drivel excuses and pretend that the gas companies are not corrupt.........[/QUOTE]typical mindless knee-jerk left wing response from mr pretentious.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2497373]Mass Transit is an excellent option that I support fully. However, it is a worth knowing and understanding it's financial side.

    For example, your average Commuter Rail agency (such as the fine MTA Genesis locomotive above) recoups only about 50-60% of it's Operational Costs at the Fare Box. That means that the remaining 40-50% of Operational costs must be recovered via Federal/State/Local Subsidy.

    And that is only operational cost, i.e. the cost of running the existing train service from A to B and back each day. That does not include expansion, fleet additions, parking lot growth or tower construction, track additions or any other Capital Improvement costs. Only pure operations. Hence the remaining costs must also be subsidized.

    The average ticket would need to be increased by ~5x to cover the actual costs of commuting. However, such an increase is simply unfeasable in today's marketplace.[/QUOTE]also as society becomes less centralized..more people will be working out of homes or more mobile locations in the future(companies will want to eliminate this overhead charge)how important is mass transit going to be?

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2497160]Indeed. Is the military currently investing as much as it can into "alternatives"? Would limiting the military budget significantly force their hands into hastening the inventing process? It would be an exxxxxtremly unpopular move, especially during wartime. But with the Iraqis ramping up their involvement and the possibility of a Dem president...it could happen.

    Mankind's unique ability to think of inventive and economic ways to kill each other has been a major catalyst in newer technologies. Who knows? Perhaps our secretive military is already knocking at the door of alternatives and we just don't know about it yet...[/QUOTE]excellent post but one thing.there is absolutely no chance of a Dem president.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2497394]also as society becomes less centralized..more people will be working out of homes or more mobile locations in the future(companies will want to eliminate this overhead charge)how important is mass transit going to be?[/QUOTE]

    You live in NYC and ask that question?!?

    Wow.

    Again, everything is subsidized. Even Corporate America.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2497394]also as society becomes less centralized..more people will be working out of homes or more mobile locations in the future(companies will want to eliminate this overhead charge)how important is mass transit going to be?[/QUOTE]

    It's going to be (and already is in many places) vitally important. In some locales, development is almost reliant upon commuter service, and the most distant suburbs are forming specificly around the mass transit hubs, with retail and transport as the central feature.

    However, the troubling reality is that on a per-rider basis, mass transit is often one of the most expensive costs going in transportation funding. That doesn't make it wrong to invent in by any means, but it is something that must be overcome in the minds of some.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2496945]they have had the technology that would allow cars to run on electricity for some time. The excuse was always that it took way too long to charge the car.

    Over at the NY car show at the convention center , they showed off a car that runs on electricity and it only takes [B]two[/B] hours to charge. As with any type of energy, there are issues that have to be resolved. But, If we were serious about getting away from our addiction to oil, instead of just paying lip service to it, we would begin to transition to this technology over time. Of course its kind of hard to do that when you have countless politicans deep into the pockets of the gas/oil companies.

    Not only is our addiction to oil bad for the environment and our wallets, it also keeps us involved with foreign issues that cost us American lives and billions of dollars. The amount of money that it takes to prosecute this war ( estimated well over 3 Billion dollars) could have allowed us to transition to other technologies[/QUOTE] can you tell me how they make electric cars and what kind of enviromental footprint it leaves? go search the internet for a article you can link with the answer.we'll wait.unless you got class.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2497411]It's going (and already is in many places) vitally important. In some locales, development is almost reliant upon commuter service, and the most distant suburbs are forming specificly around the mass transit hubs, with retail and transport as the central feature.

    However, the troubling reality is that on a per-rider basis, mass transit is often one of the most expensive costs going in transportation funding. That doesn't make it wrong to invent in by any means, but it is something that must be overcome in the minds of some.[/QUOTE]yes you need transport links but less and less people will be centralized and work closer to or at home in relation to their jobs ,again how important is mass transit? most suburbs don't have transport links.what are the mass transit options in the southwest or south?

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2497403]You live in NYC and ask that question?!?

    Wow.

    Again, everything is subsidized. Even Corporate America.[/QUOTE]you know how many companies moved out of new york?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us