s/o Those of you that think gas prices should equal Europe's

[TechWife]

I imagine they get less snow than we do.

 

Check out the photos I added - it's amazing! 

[Renee in NC]

I lived for five years in a moderate-sized city with extensive public transportation, and I don't recall ever once hearing about a crime being committed on a bus.  Something about being in close proximity to twenty witnesses seems to discourage that.  But there were plenty of stories of people driving alone being assaulted or carjacked.

 

Google Durham, NC bus shootings.  Then again, you can be assualted and carjacked there, too! LOL

[TechWife]

Google Durham, NC bus shootings.  Then again, you can be assualted and carjacked there, too! LOL

 

 Ayup. Durham's a whole 'nother story. 

 

I'd "like" this post, but it would seem barbaric.

[Renee in NC]

 Ayup. Durham's a whole 'nother story. 

 

I'd "like" this post, but it would seem barbaric.

 

And THAT is the reason I live way out here and commute to Durham!

[MistyMountain]

Interesting that you bring that up.... I live in one of the snowiest places in the U.S. and there is a sizable and rapidly-growing segment of the population that bikes (car-free) year-round. There are special tires and gear for this purpose. It is not for me...I am a fair-weather biker...but I suspect if I wanted to be mobile and a car was not an option, I would find a way to make it work.

My husband bike commuted to work year round for several years while we had kids even. We live in Alaska and get plenty of snow. At the moment our city isn't really set up for winter biking but there definitely are people out there doing it and who are advocating to make it more bike friendly.

[Upward Journey]

My husband bike commuted to work for several years while we had kids even. We live in Alaska and get plenty of snow. At the moment it isn't really set up for winter biking but there definitely are people out there doing it and who are advocating to make it more bike friendly.

 

Not Alaska, but close enough latitude wise.

 

Yesterday morning I saw someone biking into work.  The temperature with windchill was -30F.  That's crazy cold! And yes, there's snow on the ground.

[Catwoman]

Uh yeah not for me either.  I hate snow, winter, cold....brrrrrrrr

 

No thanks.

Same here.

 

I'm not into the whole bicycling thing, anyway.

[MistyMountain]

What I am getting from this thread is that people want the infrastructure of mass public transit improved or to exist where it does not currently. Walkable/ bikeable communities.

 

Agreed.

 

That is not the same as saying "raise gas prices because Americans drive too much."

 

The former may be implied by the latter, but only if one is to read between the lines in that manner based on personal experience and circumstance.

Hence we will continue to speak in circles because we are talking about two different ideas under the guise of one.

We are paying gas prices that are not realistic. We subsidize the cost of gas and make it artificially lower. Our prices are way lower then other industrialized nations and it shows in our lifestyles. We do need to make more walk-able bike-able etc communities but it won't happen with dirt cheap gas prices because there is no incentive to not continue in the manner we currently are. The majority of people are in the dark about our resource use and where it comes from or how a city should be designed. No one is advocating for a drastic change over night but we do need to slowly increase the price and make the changes we need to build more sustainable cities because one big aspect of sustainability is how we design our cities. This isn't about blaming any individual about their lifestyle choices but the need to make changes so that future generations have the resources they need to simply live. I think that the different things individuals themselves do are important and cool but for real change to occur the prices do need to rise and we need to start designing our cities so we don't need to be so resource intense. I could list out what we do and don't do to use less gas and why certain things I don't mind doing and other things are hard but it is really irrelevant.

[mommymilkies]

In our area, it would mean financial devastation. Most people with a job that actually pays a living wage

live 45 miles away from their employer. Most of the jobs in this area are minimum wage, part time, no

benefits. Since the state is in dire financial straits and Detroit's bankruptcy looks like it is going

through which means that a lot of retirees are going to get their pensions stolen (one of the proposals

was to pay only 16 cents on the dollar!!!!!) there will be a new wave of many thousands of individuals

who will require public assistance in order to survive. There will be no money to invest in public

transportation. peoples will literally go hungry because the state legislature passed a law that

benefits /food stamps, rent assistance, utilities assistance, child care subsidy cannot be collected for

morenthan four years.

 

More families will enter cyclical poverty.

 

So I'm not a supporter because there is no public transportation infrastructure already in place for

most citizens in Michigan and frankly, in many areas of the Midwest and South.

This.  There just isn't enough public transportation in most areas.  Europe has great public transportation.  You really can't compare the two. 

[Catwoman]

Yeah that is another thing. The short Dutch people are like 10 feet tall. I myself am barely over 5ft. Imagine "me" driving that $4000 monstrosity with 3 kids? Just ain't happening. I wouldn't be able to get onto the bike let alone drive it.

I know what you mean.

 

Also, who needs all that fresh air? All that air can't possibly be good for you (at least not where I live.) :D

[Mrs Mungo]

I imagine they get less snow than we do.

They are at 52 degrees N with Alaska. All of the continental US is south of The Netherlands. Weather isn't what plays the biggest part in this. We have fantastic weather year round. A bunch of guys that work with dh were biking to work, but *six* of them were hit by cars in a year's span. If you make a place bike/walking friendly, then people will walk or bike. Two of my kids were born in Germany. I used to put ds in the sling, stick my girls in a wagon, walk to get my groceries and walk home. I did that even in the cold and the snow (luckily, you could buy mulled wine once you were downtown, that helps keep you warm!). It isn't nearly as easy to do that in most of the US, everyone agrees. But, that doesn't mean that it *can't* be just as easy.

[Dory]

Uh huh...try driving one through the snow, ice, etc.  Not terribly practical.  I couldn't afford a car AND this $4000 contraption I can only use part of the year.

Well I know people who have gotten motorbikes for in the summer only up here and still save money because it's considerably less on fuel. One doesn't need one of those European contraptions. There are lots of bike carts over here for less. If one used it 3 months of the year and spent the $250/month that I do, they'd save $750 on fuel alone during the summer, not to mention upkeep that is substantially more than a car.

 

This thread is inspiring me to push the biking more in the summer.

 

In the winter as a kid, we often road our horses if we were heading the neighbors. Obviously not everyone can do that.

[Mrs Mungo]

This. There just isn't enough public transportation in most areas. Europe has great public transportation. You really can't compare the two.

Everyone agrees, but many people want this fact to change.

[Deb in NZ]

Lifestyles evolve.  Look at the standard home size of today compared to when you were a child.  The median home size peaked a couple of years ago (I think) and has started to decline a bit.  I know that near me there are a number of golf course communities that attract retirees.  When we bought our house twenty years ago, the houses in the gated golf club communities were around 2000-2500 square feet.  Ten years ago they grew to 2800-3000 sq ft.  I think retirees realized that they really didn't want to clean all those bathrooms so now the new houses are getting smaller.  Is this asking a retiree to give up his lifestyle?  I think that they are just coming to their senses and are realizing that they don't need that much house and it is nuts to pay for heating and cooling a house you really don't need.

 

Similarly warehouses that were abandoned in urban areas have become trendy apartments.  Things change.  One of my friends sold her house near me and is renting a tiny place in the city where she works in order to forgo the commute.  She gambled that this lifestyle change would improve the quality of her life and it has.  She lives in a historic area and can walk about everywhere.  Crime?  Yes, there is more in her new neighborhood but she is taking the risk for what she sees as a better life for a single woman.  This was not forced.  It was a conscious change.  And I don't think she is alone.  Look at all  of the refurbished downtown areas in cities large and small.  Lots of people are questioning the time they waste in a long commute--let alone the money spent on fuel.

 

I don't see life as static.  Natural resources are not infinite.  All of us have a finite amount of money in our wallets and a finite amount of time in our days so we all get to decide how to spend it.  When commodity prices rise, I guess you could say that change is being forced upon you.  For example, if Congress doesn't get it together on the Farm Bill, milk supports are going away and we will all be paying $7 a gallon for milk.  So we all will have to decide if we are going to consume as much dairy or if we are going to move funds from one budget line to another.  A lot of people don't like government intervention so I suppose they are cheering the end of dairy support.

 

I'm rambling...I hope that I have made some sense.

 

The US gov't helps a lot to keep prices in the States low.  Here we've been paying that price for over a decade.  We pay about $20 weekly for milk alone, & that is the cheapest milk I can find.  As dairy is one of NZ's main exports, I find it shameful that many people can't afford to give their children milk.  Subsidies don't exist in most countries around the world.  This is only one reason that most people pay so much more for basic needs than Americans.  

 

JMHO,

[Murphy101]

Sigh.

 

It was an interesting topic until it veered into the abyss. Now it reads like a bunch of Dave Ramsey's saying what poor people do wrong.

 

Everyone I know likes saving a dime.

 

I don't know anyone saying, "yo! I coulda bought a car with triple the mileage to meet my needs, but hey I decided that was just nuts and bought this gas guzzling hunk of crap instead! Woot!"

 

As for the argument that killing folks slowly with taxation is the great alternative to a swift death, well count me out. We have made less every single year the last 8 years. We have adjusted for sure. We just do without more every year. And I see it in the next generation as well. 20-something's that can't afford to live on their own is becoming very common. Frankly, I don't think it's a positive "adjustment".

 

I am 100% for alternative energy, public transport (if our county can quit screw us over by diverting the funds elsewhere every freaking year and never finishing a single road project), side walks and bike lanes. I love all of that. In fact, I've said before that every time a new road is built, I think it should be mandatory that it have: a bike lane, a pedestrian sidewalk, and a pull off for buses. (Build it and the buses will come!)

 

I think there should be a major relaxation of property codes so people can be innovative in using alternative energy if they want, rather than only the well-off getting a discount for their new energy "efficient" house being built. There are many things I'd do that by law I cannot do without facing fines. And anything permanent to the house would mean I can't sell it or would have a very hard time doing so bc it wouldn't pass code. Not bc they are unsafe, but bc the code is set up to promote a certain set up.

 

To take Churchill's quote... Americans tried Europe and founded the United States.

 

I don't really think Europe is all that fabulous and don't really have much desire to replicate them. They're nice and all that. No hard feelings. But I don't hold them up as some pillar. I agree with someone else that one needs to view the states as a somewhat loose connection of nations. I think maybe Europeans view our federal government like a European government over provinces and it's just not quite like that at all.

[Melissa in Australia]

I imagine they get less snow than we do.

My Dh biked to school every day of his primary and secondary schooling in Canada. it was not uncommon and they get a heap of snow

[Crimson Wife]

Most minorities....does that mean individuals who bleed and breathe, or is it more of a monolithic whole of sorts, like the Borg?

Huh? If I said "most whites are law-abiding" would you have any misunderstanding of what I meant by that statement? So how is saying "most minorities are law-abiding" confusing to you?

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Huh? If I said "most whites are law-abiding" would you have any misunderstanding of what I meant by that statement? So how is saying "most minorities are law-abiding" confusing to you?

It's not confusing, it's racist. No confusion there at all.

[La Condessa]

What I'm hearing from some people seems to come down to: "I don't want to ride public transit because there are black people there."

Really? I didn't get that at all--rather I heard "I don't want to ride public transit because there are criminals there." Which actually makes a lot of sense in my personal situation, but I recognize might not apply to most people. My husband is a DDA in a sparsely populated county where everyone knows everyone on sight. A great many of the defendants he deals with for his work get their licenses pulled for reasons related to their being in court in the first place, and therefore have to use the bus system between the little towns to make their court dates, etc. Because these folks are likely to recognize me on sight as the wife of the guy trying to put them in jail, the bus does not seem like a very safe option. Also, the mentally ill generally have to use public transportation--of course, most mentally ill people are not dangerous, but some are.

 

(There was the one nonspecific mention of "demographics", which if you were interpreting as a reference to race, would have to be more of a wish to avoid Hispanics, since it specifically referred to CA.)

 

On a different line, I would love one of those awesome bikes that can fit all your kids if we could afford it in addition to our car. I've always wondered what those families in Amsterdam do when the weather is really bad with high winds, or they have a sick kid who needs to see a doctor when it's freezing out, or they are 8 months pregnant and told to avoid all strenuous activity and come in for check ups twice a week for the rest of the pregnancy.

[Murphy101]

It's not confusing, it's racist. No confusion there at all.

Oh bull hockey.

 

Crimson wife is not at all racist for noting the obvious fact that most minorities are law-abiding citizens.

 

*smh*

[Murphy101]

I don't have any qualms at all about riding public transport. Love it in Denver and Kansas City and some other cities too. Even later at night.

 

However, fact remains that certain areas have a much higher crime rate and I would not want to walk, bike, public transport in those areas, especially at extra early or late hours. I don't care what shade the inhabitants of those areas are, it's the crime risk I want to avoid.

[Crimson Wife]

It's not confusing, it's racist. No confusion there at all.

Many of my friends are not white. I don't judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

 

It isn't racist to be against gang members and other criminals. I'm against the Irish, Italian, Russian, etc. gangs, too.

[ocelotmom]

On a different line, I would love one of those awesome bikes that can fit all your kids if we could afford it in addition to our car. I've always wondered what those families in Amsterdam do when the weather is really bad with high winds, or they have a sick kid who needs to see a doctor when it's freezing out, or they are 8 months pregnant and told to avoid all strenuous activity and come in for check ups twice a week for the rest of the pregnancy.

 

I would suspect they use taxis, or know someone who has a car who can help out temporarily, or have a car that they just choose not to use when not absolutely necessary. 

[La Condessa]

I would suspect they use taxis, or know someone who has a car who can help out temporarily, or have a car that they just choose not to use when not absolutely necessary.

That seems like it could get quite expensive, but then, I suppose you would just have to take that into consideration and set a small portion of your savings on cheaper transportation costs aside for a larger emergency fund. About twice a year I find myself looking at those bikes online again and trying to imagine up a way to make it work.

[ocelotmom]

That seems like it could get quite expensive, but then, I suppose you would just have to take that into consideration and set a small portion of your savings on cheaper transportation costs aside for a larger emergency fund. About twice a year I find myself looking at those bikes online again and trying to imagine up a way to make it work.

Taking a taxi a short distance on occasion is way less expensive than car ownership. And yes, you just budget for emergencies, just as you hopefully budget for an extra tank of gas or emergency repairs with a car. You also make practical decisions - you choose a pediatrician no more than a few miles away so that the taxi won't be a $300 bill. And preferably within walking/biking distance for all the times that aren't emergencies in horrible weather.

 

Even though I mentioned it first, taxi would probably also be last resort if you didn't have another option - asking a friend or relative for help, car rental, zipcar type deal, public transportation, etc. 

[TechWife]

 

On a different line, I would love one of those awesome bikes that can fit all your kids if we could afford it in addition to our car. I've always wondered what those families in Amsterdam do when the weather is really bad with high winds, or they have a sick kid who needs to see a doctor when it's freezing out, or they are 8 months pregnant and told to avoid all strenuous activity and come in for check ups twice a week for the rest of the pregnancy.

Amsterdam also has an extensive tram system, the GVB, which also includes busses and ferries. They use them when they need to. Stops are plentiful and routes are good. I wonder if a dr. In Amsterdam would consider biking a strenuous activity, though? They could also ride as aassenger on someone's back bike rack/seat.

 

I sure hope they use taxis to get to the hospital when their babies are on the way, though!

[Mrs Mungo]

Amsterdam also has an extensive tram system, the GVB, which also includes busses and ferries. They use them when they need to. Stops are plentiful and routes are good.

 

And there are water taxis in Venice, Amsterdam and similar places that work the same way as buses. They are big, hold a bunch of people and have a specific route.

[Catwoman]

Taking a taxi a short distance on occasion is way less expensive than car ownership. And yes, you just budget for emergencies, just as you hopefully budget for an extra tank of gas or emergency repairs with a car. You also make practical decisions - you choose a pediatrician no more than a few miles away so that the taxi won't be a $300 bill. And preferably within walking/biking distance for all the times that aren't emergencies in horrible weather.

 

Even though I mentioned it first, taxi would probably also be last resort if you didn't have another option - asking a friend or relative for help, car rental, zipcar type deal, public transportation, etc.

This may not be a popular opinion in this thread, and maybe I should be posting it in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but I would rather just have a car than go to all that trouble.

 

I don't want to walk or bike everywhere I go in hot weather, cold weather, wind, rain, or snow. I don't want to walk or bike when I'm not feeling well, when my allergies are acting up, or when I'm just plain tired. I don't want to have to call a taxi every time I have an appointment with the doctor, and I don't want to feel obligated to use only local professionals and shop in local stores, because I can't easily get to the ones in other cities and towns. And I'm not outdoorsy. I don't want to be outdoorsy.

 

While I'm all in favor of contributing financially to the development of a good public transportation system, I'll just keep my cars and deal with the expense. It's well worth it to me.

[Rosie_0801]

 

But wowsers on spending $70 a week!  EEK

 

I spend about $100.

 

Of course I save by not having heating, cooling, washing in dam water... :p

[Laura Corin]

Interesting. I'm in a rural area in the US and spend about $70/ week driving.

 

What's your MPG?  I drive a Ford Focus Hatchback, which fits four adult-sized people easily and a fifth at a squeeze.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

I believe she is only including herself. 

 

Yes - Husband is only partly employed at present and works from home, so his petrol use is minimal.  I do most of the shopping/school ferrying as well as my commute.

 

L

[LibraryLover]

Uh huh...try driving one through the snow, ice, etc.  Not terribly practical.  I couldn't afford a car AND this $4000 contraption I can only use part of the year.

 

Well, there is snow & ice in Amsterdam.  :)

 

Look. These are great! No argument there, but they are also heavy.  They are practical in some areas, not so practical/impossible in others.

 

I am FOR them, but biking that sort of weight is better suited to towns without steep hills. That would rule out San Fran for most folks.

 

But it's ridiculous to say this couldn't work at all in the US.

[LibraryLover]

I imagine they get less snow than we do.

 

They mostly do not. Yet the terrain is different.  It's mostly flat. That geography just is.

 

However, there are some towns in the US where this could work if people had access/interest/information.  It doesn't snow 12 mos of the year. 

 

Every effort matters.

[Murphy101]

In with catwoman. What a daily pita for a woman with children. Much less multiple children. And to be limited in who I do business with by who is within walking distance would have a dire affect indeed on my entire life. Not to mention the time involved. Quite frankly I have no desire to ADD to our commute/errand time. I'd much prefer to get on with doing other things in life.

 

Let's see:

I go to 4 different grocery stores to buy healthier foods. None are within walking distance. And I like to walk! I consider walking distance to be 2 miles with kids and a stroller.

 

We would stop recycling aluminum. It's over 15 miles to where I recycle it. The payment covers about 1/2 the cost of gas.

 

My dh could go to the endocrinologist he refers to as Killer which is closer. You can guess our sentiment about going there.

 

Oh and the nearest hospital is the one that I had a unmedicated cesarean at. So yes, even when I was having chest pain and going to the ER thanksgiving day - I gasped to keep bleeping driving to the next one!

 

Again. This isn't Europe and I'm not really interested in making it into Europe.

 

You want to talk reduce reuse recycle and alternative energy? Great! I'm all for it.

 

But the problem is some seem to insist you have to make people miserable to make that happen and you just don't. In fact, that does nothing more than make it more difficult for the poor and make them more limited and poorer. The well off are just going to shrug and continue as they are.

[Laura Corin]

I don't really think Europe is all that fabulous and don't really have much desire to replicate them. They're nice and all that. No hard feelings. But I don't hold them up as some pillar. 

 

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the US should replicate Europe.  But I do think that it's worthwhile looking at how other countries organise themselves in order to take the best and discard the rest.

 

L

[LibraryLover]

Not all Europeans can walk to where-ever they would like.  The bus costs are steep, and it can take quite awhile to get to the major cities. It's not Nirvana.

 

But.

 

Having better access to public transportation is a good thing. Having more affordable access to cars that are not gas guzzlers is a good thing.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I think some of you are spectacularly missing the point(s?).

 

There are two points here:

 

1. The ways in which many/most people currently live in the US are *unsustainable* long term (meaning beyond our life times). At some point people will be *forced* to change! That *will* happen regardless of how far your house is from town, how many stores you currently shop at, whether you enjoy biking, whether or not there are hills, whether or not you are outdoorsy. It seems easier to make slow, incremental change, but there are clearly many, many people who refuse to even consider any possible change to their life style, no matter how unsustainable it may be. That is actually mind-blowing to me.

 

2. People brought up Europe to show that living a different way is neither impossible or even miserable. They didn't bring it up to suggest we should replicate it in every way. I guarantee that *every* person here who has lived globally will tell you that there are good and bad things about everywhere you can live. But, refusing to even look at how other countries live is...well...short sighted, at best.

[Murphy101]

Not all Europeans can walk to where-ever they would like. The bus costs are steep, and it can take quite awhile to get to the major cities. It's not Nirvana.

 

That's a fact. Period.

 

But.

 

Having better access to public transportation is a good thing. Having more affordable access to cars that are not gas guzzlers is a good thing.

Then for the love of donuts, why is the conversation focused on the cost of gas rather than something that I've yet to see anyone disagree with - point of fact, the bolded part?

 

I think there IS demand for exactly those things. In fact, I've never in my life met someone who thinks those are bad things. The closest I've come to it is many people get annoyed that so much of the few fuel efficient vehicles are crap and ridiculously expensive to maintain. They WANT fuel efficient AND a quality vehicle. Can't fault them for that. Well you might, but I wouldn't.

 

I fail to see how raising the cost of fuel is going to cause mass transit to develop or become efficient enough to reliably use. I fail to see how raising the cost of fuel is going to make people who can't afford gas able to afford a newer more fuel efficient vehicle.

 

I do see a lot of political donkey butts in bed with a lot of fuel mongols deciding how they can make a bloody fortune mismanaging the market via legal and business means to the disadvantage of common people getting reliable mass transit and affordable fuel efficient vehicles.

 

I'm all for booting the entire lot of crooked jerks, but no honest decent man would ever want to run for office, so there's a conundrum for avoiding anarchy.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think there IS demand for exactly those things. In fact, I've never in my life met someone who thinks those are bad things. The closest I've come to it is many people get annoyed that so much of the few fuel efficient vehicles are crap and ridiculously expensive to maintain. They WANT fuel efficient AND a quality vehicle. Can't fault them for that. Well you might, but I wouldn't.

But, they exist. We don't get them here. Why? Have you watched the "who killed the electric car" documentary? Big oil has a crazy amount of political power. It is just insane.

 

I fail to see how raising the cost of fuel is going to cause mass transit to develop or become efficient enough to reliably use. I fail to see how raising the cost of fuel is going to make people who can't afford gas able to afford a newer more fuel efficient vehicle.

Most of the people here are talking about diverting money from subsidies going to big oil and go toward developing alternative energy and mass transit.

 

I do see a lot of political donkey butts in bed with a lot of fuel mongols deciding how they can make a bloody fortune mismanaging the market via legal and business means to the disadvantage of common people getting reliable mass transit and affordable fuel efficient vehicles.

Absolutely, agreed. But, we see those same arguments in this very thread.

[Murphy101]

But, they exist. We don't get them here. Why? Have you watched the "who killed the electric car" documentary? Big oil has a crazy amount of political power. It is just insane.

That would be some of the donkey butts I was referring to.

 

Most of the people here are talking about diverting money from subsidies going to big oil and go toward developing alternative energy and mass transit.

Then why discuss raising the cost of the fuel at all? If the question were instead:

Do you think federal/state subsidies for fuel should be shifted from padding the coffers of oil companies and instead diverted to creating mass transit in localities that need it?

 

I bet the discussion would be rather brief and not nearly so upsetting to the many folks who can barely afford fuel now. Yes?

 

Also, I'd like to see a double solution to fuel efficiency.

 

Bottom line is both my vehicles are paid off and I'm going to drive them until I absolutely can't and I sure am not likely to replace them with something I need a loan to buy. (And many can't afford the loan regardless of debt opinions anyways.)

 

I think a two prong approach to both making new fuel efficient vehicles available and making replacements for older vehicles that boost their efficiency should be supported as much as possible. I think the cash for clunkers was a deplorable waste and just flat out stupid. At the very least, it ruined them for salvage, so there goes both reduce and reuse. (Which are listed before recycle for a reason. They are by far the greater priority in living green. Recycle is a last, tho good, resort.) I think this is important bc it reduces how many new vehicles need to be made and makes use of current vehicles, which helps those who can't afford a newer fuel efficient car still use what they have and still reduce fuel use. But of course, both those ideas are doom to the auto industry. (I actually don't think so if they greet it with innovation.)

 

And it's after 3am. I don't think I can knit any longer or make any logical arguments and my pain medication isn't doing diddly for my shoulder and ribs. It's making me cranky. So I'm going to try to gently ease my body onto the edge of the bed and try not to get kicked by the 2 yr old.

[fraidycat]

Most of the people here are talking about diverting money from subsidies going to big oil and go toward developing alternative energy and mass transit.

 

.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Some people are talking about diverting money. Some people are talking about rising fuel prices. Some even think they are talking about both, but it is not clearly about both at the outset of the thread, so this is where the confusion comes in.

 

But, the question was simply, should we raise prices? Not should we raise prices to build better public transit? The impression I actually got from the original post in the unpopular opinion thread was just raise prices enough to force habit change (ie: make it uncomfortable for those selfish Americans) and not really about actual policy/infrastructure change. That some read it as more money=better infrastructure is purely because they have those experiences (living globally) to draw such a conclusion. Those with different experience read it differently.

 

To sum up, I think there are two parallel conversations happening here. Running along on their separate rails. I don't actually see much disagreement, rather simple misunderstanding because the rails have not intersected.

 

I think the answers would be a lot different if the question was "who would like to see better options for public transit in the US? And do you think raising gas prices help to attain that?"

[Mrs Mungo]

This is what I was talking about earlier. Some people are talking about diverting money. Some people are talking about rising fuel prices. Some even think they are talking about both, but it is not clearly about both at the outset of the thread, so this is where the confusion comes in.

Cutting subsidies *will* cause fuel prices to go up. Because that is how industry works in the US. It doesn't matter that oil companies are enjoying huge profits as things stand and could probably afford to absorb some of the cost.

 

But, the question was simply, should we raise prices? Not should we raise prices to build better public transit?

The discussion evolved because people instantly insisted that raising prices would doom everything. It won't doom everything. It will eventually change how people live. That is just a cold stone fact. Cheap fuel prices, mass production and WalMart changed how we lived, like I said before.

 

The impression I actually got from the original post in the unpopular opinion thread was just raise prices enough to force habit change (ie: make it uncomfortable for those selfish Americans) and not really about actual policy/infrastructure change. That some read it as more money=better infrastructure is purely because they have those experiences (living globally) to draw such a conclusion. Those with different experience read it differently.

Forcing a habit change isn't calling anyone selfish. Most people need a reason to change their habits. People don't generally go to AA or weight watchers or Spanish class until they have a reason for it. You see in this thread how very, very comfortable people are with their lives as is, even people who already struggling to keep that way of life. People don't even want to consider the idea of making changes. That is what I find surprising.

[Rosie_0801]

I can tell you people here stopped driving as much when there was a sharp increase in petrol prices. The Sunday Drive was practically an institution here and it sure isn't now.

[fraidycat]

:) For the record, I don't disagree with the premise of diverting subsidies and improving public options. Once that part was explained more clearly. I was just trying to hopefully explain where I was seeing the disconnect in the conversation(s).

 

I was one of the early "naysayers" on the thread when it was just about raising prices. Once it turned to how & why exactly prices could/should be raised (diversion of money for better public use) I'm not against that at all. I don't see it happening any time soon (politics), but the idea is not a bad one. I'd love to feel safer taking my kids out to walk/bike more to accomplish everyday life and errands. As it is, we have to load the bikes into the SUV and drive to a safe place (park) to ride them.

 

I'm also not a huge fan of driving. If there was an extensive, reliable, safe, timely way for me to use public transit, I'd do it!!

[Aelwydd]

Then why discuss raising the cost of the fuel at all? If the question were instead:

Do you think federal/state subsidies for fuel should be shifted from padding the coffers of oil companies and instead diverted to creating mass transit in localities that need it?

 

 

Because the subsidies are part of what keeps gas prices artificially low.  If we, as a society, choose to reinvest those dollars into infrastructure and developing city planning and technologies that favor reduced energy consumption, then de facto, the price of gas will have to absorb that loss of funding.

 

I get that you don't want to walk or ride your bike in cold or rainy weather.  I feel the same way.  I'm not even sure I'm physically fit enough, even though I'm only 10 lbs overweight, to ride my bike further than a few miles. Especially in the summer here, when the temperatures reach over 100 F, and heat exhaustion and heat stroke are a real threat.  I have asthma, and I have other health problems that make it difficult.

 

However, I also look at the dwindling resources, look at how young people can't find work, due to increased competition. I realize that if I don't suck it up, along with other people in my generation, then my kid, and my grand kids, won't even have the option of the cab.  They won't have the option of taking a bus or a train, even.  Because the resources that could have been spent on creating such options for the future--when owning a personal vehicle will simply be too cost prohibitive for the majority of people--will have been spent on fueling our lifestyle now.

 

I don't know what to tell you about the choices facing us except it sucks, and we're footing the bill from our parents and grandparents' generations.  I really don't want to follow their example and choose to kick the can down to our kids and grandkids.

[fraidycat]

Gas prices should be raised so high through taxes that people are forced to adjust how they live in North America (as people have been forced in Europe).

Here is the quote from the original thread. Raise prices through taxes. Not diverting money. Not TO do something with said diverted money. Nothing about public transit.

 

Nobody is arguing that IF subsidies to oil companies were cut that prices would rise. That, however is just a byproduct of the conversation. The original question in this thread is about whether you live rural or urban and if you think prices SHOULD rise, not HOW.

 

This is why people are saying that the question asked and the question answered do not match up.

 

It's like asking do you like fries with your burger? and the answer being "well the cream is the best part of the milk from the cow, so you must have the ice cream". Ice cream has nothing to do with the original question, just like oil subsidies have nothing to do with the original question here. Yes, ice cream might make a wonderful addition to your meal, but the question is "Do you like fries?"

 

Some people are still talking about fries, while others have moved on to the benefits of ice cream. That is what I see in this thread.

 

The repeated explanations about why prices would rise if subsidies were diverted are not necessary. We understand. But we're saying if you wanted to talk about ice cream, why didn't you ask about ice cream, instead of fries!!!!

[Tress]

My argument was mostly that we were discussing the Cadillac of bikes.  I don't have the Cadillac of budgets. 

 

Only reacting on the price of such bikes:

 

there is no need at all for those bikes to cost 4000$. I about fell over when I read that.

 

I own such a bike (I'm in the Netherlands) and I bought it for 1500euro, which is still a steep price for a bike, but not nearly as outrageous as 4000$. If  lots of Americans were going to buy such a bike, prices could go down a lot.

 

ETA: We don't have much snow here, we have rain...and rain...and rain :D.

[Tress]

Well considering I could buy a bike for $75, that's still very steep.  For a family of four you could see how that could add up (at the 1500 euro price).  In US dollars that is over $2000.  Of course one WOULD want a good bike if they had to use it daily. 

 

I agree.  That exact bike would be an import so already that makes it outrageously expensive.  I do realize that.

 

Biking is quite dangerous in my city.  There are no bike lanes in most spots.  Roadways are set up to favor cars (not pedestrians nor bikers).  I myself no longer own a bike.  I got rid of it because I found I couldn't use it.  I actually had to drive my bike somewhere just to ride it and that somewhere was far so the whole thing was just silly.  My kids don't even ride bikes much.  I have to drive them somewhere too!  Ugh.

 

But you wouldn't need such a bike (bakfiets) for every person in your family. *I* have such a bike and I put my dd2 and dd5 (and groceries) in it, my dd7 and dd10 bike alongside me. Sometimes my dd5 also bikes. Their bikes are hand me downs.

 

I agree that the safety aspect is the most important! I wouldn't ride a bike with my kids if I thought it was dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tress]

I don't think at any point I could have physically handled driving 2 kids on a bike.  Could your 10 year old do that?  Are you Dutch?  Your 10 year old might be taller than me.  LOL

 

I'm Dutch, but I'm not 10 feet tall :lol:.  I'm 5'8".

 

I'm not sure if length has much impact on it. I have a neighbour who is much shorter, who rides a bike like this. I do think that model is easier.

 

You do need to be in reasonable condition, in the years my asthma was bad, it was difficult. But every bike would have been difficult :).

 

[Jane in NC]

Taking a taxi a short distance on occasion is way less expensive than car ownership. And yes, you just budget for emergencies, just as you hopefully budget for an extra tank of gas or emergency repairs with a car. You also make practical decisions - you choose a pediatrician no more than a few miles away so that the taxi won't be a $300 bill. And preferably within walking/biking distance for all the times that aren't emergencies in horrible weather.

 

 

This is not just true in Europe.  One of my friends who lives in Manhattan owned a car for a few years until she realized that the occasional rental vehicle or taxi is much cheaper than paying for insurance/parking in NYC.  In fact, I have known other families who drive smaller, more efficient cars but rent a larger vehicle for their vacations.  They have run the numbers on this and it works for them.

 

This may not be a popular opinion in this thread, and maybe I should be posting it in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but I would rather just have a car than go to all that trouble.

 

I don't want to walk or bike everywhere I go in hot weather, cold weather, wind, rain, or snow. I don't want to walk or bike when I'm not feeling well, when my allergies are acting up, or when I'm just plain tired. I don't want to have to call a taxi every time I have an appointment with the doctor, and I don't want to feel obligated to use only local professionals and shop in local stores, because I can't easily get to the ones in other cities and towns. And I'm not outdoorsy. I don't want to be outdoorsy.

 

While I'm all in favor of contributing financially to the development of a good public transportation system, I'll just keep my cars and deal with the expense. It's well worth it to me.

Cat, I suspect that you will always have the option of driving no matter what the cost of fuel is. 

 

One thing that I think is always missing in the discussion of transportation costs is the true cost of car ownership.  We in the States tend to focus on fuel costs so we see driving as a relatively cheap thing.  But if we consider the cost of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, etc., traveling by car is far more expensive than just the cost of fuel.  I go to Boston regularly but never drive there.  For one thing, I think urban driving is stressful and hazardous.  Those of you who live in cities have a comfort level that I don't have.  The "T" is much less expensive than paying for urban parking!

 

The thing that I cannot understand is why creating mass transit systems is viewed as socialist clap trap but subsidizing oil companies (hence the price of fuel) is viewed as a positive free market incentive.