Then you have no idea what the Soviet system was really like.

I'll never forget the TV news interview of a Soviet family that moved to America in the early 1990s and settled in Akron. They marveled at all of America's choices in foods, stores, banks, Cable TV channels, phone services, etc. The father practically had a heart attack when he walked into his first supermarket.

 

The reporter then asked if there was anything they didn't like about America. The father answered: "In America, there is no freedom without a car."

Yeah, gotta hate that freedom to go where ever and whenever one wants! 

 

It's certainly in the interests of an authoritarian government to control movement of the population as much as possible.

 

As for that tanker, I wonder if there's another truck tagged "frack it".

 

What authoritarian government are you referring to? Right now, I'd say Ohio has a good representation of an authoritarian,  Soviet style, one-size-fits-all transportation "system" which is nothing but roads. They are doing a damn good job of restricting the movement of anyone who can't drive or does not want to drive.

 

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

If you are getting rides from friends, you are dependent on their schedule.  Likewise with public transit.

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

Because that road grew up out of the ground spontaneously....

 

Oh, and in Toronto (including their suburbs), they have a service standard that all transit will run at least every 10 minutes during daytime hours. There is also an extensive system of bike lanes, car share, Uber/Lyft and taxis. So you can leave anytime you want, although most of what you need is within a 10-minute walk. The magic of combining sensible land-use planning and multiple transportation modes that let the growing number of low-income people have a high-quality of life without depending on a car. And that seems to be the problem you're having. Just because you're not owning a car, doesn't mean you're not driving. In fact, you're not forced to do anything -- including driving. Choices -- it's the American way! Except we're not doing it when it comes to transportation...

Yeah, gotta hate that freedom to go where ever and whenever one wants! 

 

It's certainly in the interests of an authoritarian government to control movement of the population as much as possible.

 

As for that tanker, I wonder if there's another truck tagged "frack it".

 

What authoritarian government are you referring to? Right now, I'd say Ohio has a good representation of an authoritarian,  Soviet style, one-size-fits-all transportation "system" which is nothing but roads. They are doing a damn good job of restricting the movement of anyone who can't drive or does not want to drive.

 

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

If you are getting rides from friends, you are dependent on their schedule.  Likewise with public transit.

 

You are also dependent on the government to give you a license to be able to drive in the first place.

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

^ It just shows that the oil market is highly volatile, which makes it all the more absurd that nearly our entire economy and way of life is based on it.  That's the very antithesis of stability and reliability.  Besides, there's no denying that oil is a finite resource, so the current crash in prices is only temporary. 

We're forgetting that America's currently solid economy is set against a backdrop of global economic weakness, and oil is a global commodity.  When China, Europe, and India resume economic growth we will be saying "hello" to $4-5 gas again very quickly.

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

Well, if the Russian immigrant didn't make that comment 20 years ago, it never would have entered my head. Now, I simply enjoy the irony as so-called free-marketeers lambaste subsidies for any mode other than the one which has demanded the most. If you've been swimming in the water all your life, it makes it hard to notice the water.

^ It just shows that the oil market is highly volatile, which makes it all the more absurd that nearly our entire economy and way of life is based on it.  That's the very antithesis of stability and reliability.  Besides, there's no denying that oil is a finite resource, so the current crash in prices is only temporary. 

 

Far from denying it, I've been buying oil stocks.  I did in the 2008 crash when gas plunged to $1.50 in Canton, too, on the "no way that can last and I have time to wait" theory.

 

But there is a reason that the world economy (not just America's, the entire world's ... look at that map on the previous page again and combine the gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel wedges in your mind for each continent) is based on it.  Even at prices significantly higher than today's, it remains the most cost-effective energy source for a wide variety of uses, particularly transportation, in which energy density matters as much as pure power.

 

We're forgetting that America's currently solid economy is set against a backdrop of global economic weakness, and oil is a global commodity.  When China, Europe, and India resume economic growth we will be saying "hello" to $4-5 gas again very quickly.

 

Do you really think that all the professional analysts in the industry are actually forgetting that?  Or that Saudi Arabia could reverse itself tomorrow and choose to lose market share by cutting production?

^ It just shows that the oil market is highly volatile, which makes it all the more absurd that nearly our entire economy and way of life is based on it.  That's the very antithesis of stability and reliability.  Besides, there's no denying that oil is a finite resource, so the current crash in prices is only temporary. 

 

Oil may be a finite resource, but combustible liquid fuels are not.  As P. J. O'Rourke once observed, when we ran out of whale oil, no one really noticed.

 

 

Yeah, gotta hate that freedom to go where ever and whenever one wants! 

 

It's certainly in the interests of an authoritarian government to control movement of the population as much as possible.

 

As for that tanker, I wonder if there's another truck tagged "frack it".

 

What authoritarian government are you referring to? Right now, I'd say Ohio has a good representation of an authoritarian,  Soviet style, one-size-fits-all transportation "system" which is nothing but roads. They are doing a damn good job of restricting the movement of anyone who can't drive or does not want to drive.

 

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

If you are getting rides from friends, you are dependent on their schedule.  Likewise with public transit.

 

Ummm...if you drive, you already depend on the government.

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

I likened our current highway-only "system" to the USSR because we are doing the same thing they did: denying choices to people. Sorry of that bothers you, but I thought it was a good analogy.

^ It just shows that the oil market is highly volatile, which makes it all the more absurd that nearly our entire economy and way of life is based on it.  That's the very antithesis of stability and reliability.  Besides, there's no denying that oil is a finite resource, so the current crash in prices is only temporary. 

 

Oil may be a finite resource, but combustible liquid fuels are not.  As P. J. O'Rourke once observed, when we ran out of whale oil, no one really noticed.

 

Yes but in all those cases we were substituting a fossil fuel for a bio fuel of some sort (oil for whales, coal for wood, even natural gas for beeswax candles).  The problem is we don't have any substitute for fossil fuels that have any hope of "allowing us to run things the way we run them now."  Wal-Mart, commercial airliners, and sprawlburgs only work with CHEAP oil, and we've already exhausted most of it.  Sure there's still some new discoveries, but we're at diminishing returns as it gets more and more difficult and costly to extract and refine, and the alternatives are also costly to grow and refine, especially when they displace food production.  The incentives to come up with a substitute are so huge that we're not going to find something sitting in a puddle and slap our foreheads over how obvious a solution it is, because someone would have found it by now. 

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

I likened our current highway-only "system" to the USSR because we are doing the same thing they did: denying choices to people. Sorry of that bothers you, but I thought it was a good analogy.

 

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Yes but in all those cases we were substituting a fossil fuel for a bio fuel of some sort (oil for whales, coal for wood, even natural gas for beeswax candles).  The problem is we don't have any substitute for fossil fuels that have any hope of "allowing us to run things the way we run them now."  Wal-Mart, commercial airliners, and sprawlburgs only work with CHEAP oil, and we've already exhausted most of it.  Sure there's still some new discoveries, but we're at diminishing returns as it gets more and more difficult and costly to extract and refine, and the alternatives are also costly to grow and refine, especially when they displace food production.  The incentives to come up with a substitute are so huge that we're not going to find something sitting in a puddle and slap our foreheads over how obvious a solution it is, because someone would have found it by now. 

 

Agreed about alternatives that require sacrificing food.

 

But about the rest?  Not so much.  Wal-Mart and sprawling suburbs can easily work with electric cars as much as they can with gasoline-powered ones (electric aviation will admittedly be a thornier challenge), and if you haven't been following the story of Tesla Motors, you should be.  And the form factor of sprawl and big box development is actually well suited to solar power (large sky-facing surface area relative to the volume of the structure), which gets more efficient every year and may reach grid parity within the next 10 years, certainly within the next 30.  We have enough fossil fuels to last us at least that long.  Your concern about not having a substitute waiting in the wings is misplaced.  Electricity has been around long enough for us to already have considerable distribution infrastructure for it, and the older, fossil-fuel-burning generation infrastructure will gradually be replaced through the regular obsolescence cycle with better options.

 

As for jet fuel, the Pentagon has been interested in manufacturing the stuff from algae for a long time now, but it is still a long way from economically competitive and I don't know what the current improvement trajectory looks like; I doubt it's as favorable as it is for solar power.  (See, e.g., http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/pentagon-cuts-military-raises-and-benefits-spends-150-per-gallon-in-green-jet-fuel/ ... I don't endorse the shortsighted handwringing there about how much the test quantities cost as long as we're learning enough to make them cheaper, but that could still be a longer process).

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

I likened our current highway-only "system" to the USSR because we are doing the same thing they did: denying choices to people. Sorry of that bothers you, but I thought it was a good analogy.

 

To some, "freedom" = "freedom of schedule" (which a single-occupant automobile usually wins)

 

To a growing number of people, "freedom" = "freedom to choose between different modes of transportation depending on my particular needs at the moment" or "freedom to text/surf the internet/play an iPhone game while in transit instead of having to mindlessly stare at the road" or "freedom to have a few drinks at dinner without worrying about drinking and driving", etc., etc., etc.

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

I likened our current highway-only "system" to the USSR because we are doing the same thing they did: denying choices to people. Sorry of that bothers you, but I thought it was a good analogy.

 

To some, "freedom" = "freedom of schedule" (which a single-occupant automobile usually wins)

 

To a growing number of people, "freedom" = "freedom to choose between different modes of transportation depending on my particular needs at the moment" or "freedom to text/surf the internet/play an iPhone game while in transit instead of having to mindlessly stare at the road" or "freedom to have a few drinks at dinner without worrying about drinking and driving", etc., etc., etc.

 

The people in the USSR might have had a more ... elemental ... concept of what freedom would look like.

 

Even in the US, neither of those things you mention implicate freedom.  That's not to say that they aren't perfectly legitimate quality-of-life considerations, they definitely are, but the USSR analogies are still risible.

^ It just shows that the oil market is highly volatile, which makes it all the more absurd that nearly our entire economy and way of life is based on it.  That's the very antithesis of stability and reliability.  Besides, there's no denying that oil is a finite resource, so the current crash in prices is only temporary. 

 

Far from denying it, I've been buying oil stocks.  I did in the 2008 crash when gas plunged to $1.50 in Canton, too, on the "no way that can last and I have time to wait" theory.

 

But there is a reason that the world economy (not just America's, the entire world's ... look at that map on the previous page again and combine the gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel wedges in your mind for each continent) is based on it.  Even at prices significantly higher than today's, it remains the most cost-effective energy source for a wide variety of uses, particularly transportation, in which energy density matters as much as pure power.

 

We're forgetting that America's currently solid economy is set against a backdrop of global economic weakness, and oil is a global commodity.  When China, Europe, and India resume economic growth we will be saying "hello" to $4-5 gas again very quickly.

 

Do you really think that all the professional analysts in the industry are actually forgetting that?  Or that Saudi Arabia could reverse itself tomorrow and choose to lose market share by cutting production?

 

I agree that logic dictates that all of these oil stocks and funds will return to the levels they were at six months ago.  But how long will that take?  It could take 6 months -- in which case many will double their money.  But for others it could take years.  Look at how long it took ETF's like FRAK and others to reach their 2014 peak.  You might not beat the market. 

 

 

It's a risk (like any investment), but one I was willing to take.  It's true that a lot of analysts are indeed saying that it will take a while before gas gets to $3 again, let alone $4, so the climb back could be much longer than the plunge.  However, from the perspective of the rest of the economy, that's good, so oil stocks also have some hedging qualities: if they don't go up, the odds are that enough else is going right in the world that you don't need them to go up.

"The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic."

 

Listen, son...I don't know how old you are but I grew up during the cold war, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis and I served in the military during the Vietnam era, watching Russian Bear bombers at an installation in Alaska, so I know about the Soviet Union and what it did. I don't need your hypersensitivity. You don't even know me. Take a hike.

It is possible to support multimodal commuter infrastructure without either likening the existing system to the USSR or buying into peak oil alarmism (which was hilarious even before gas crumbled to under $2/gal).

 

I likened our current highway-only "system" to the USSR because we are doing the same thing they did: denying choices to people. Sorry of that bothers you, but I thought it was a good analogy.

 

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Yes but in all those cases we were substituting a fossil fuel for a bio fuel of some sort (oil for whales, coal for wood, even natural gas for beeswax candles).  The problem is we don't have any substitute for fossil fuels that have any hope of "allowing us to run things the way we run them now."  Wal-Mart, commercial airliners, and sprawlburgs only work with CHEAP oil, and we've already exhausted most of it.  Sure there's still some new discoveries, but we're at diminishing returns as it gets more and more difficult and costly to extract and refine, and the alternatives are also costly to grow and refine, especially when they displace food production.  The incentives to come up with a substitute are so huge that we're not going to find something sitting in a puddle and slap our foreheads over how obvious a solution it is, because someone would have found it by now. 

 

Agreed about alternatives that require sacrificing food.

 

But about the rest?  Not so much.  Wal-Mart and sprawling suburbs can easily work with electric cars as much as they can with gasoline-powered ones (electric aviation will admittedly be a thornier challenge), and if you haven't been following the story of Tesla Motors, you should be. 

 

 

Ummm, it's not only about the cars driven there by customers. It's more about the semi trucks and the fragility of just-in-time delivery systems. I haven't heard much talk if any about electric semis.

Yeah, gotta hate that freedom to go where ever and whenever one wants! 

 

It's certainly in the interests of an authoritarian government to control movement of the population as much as possible.

 

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

If you are getting rides from friends, you are dependent on their schedule.  Likewise with public transit.

 

Any time you sit at a stoplight you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you wait to turn onto a major road from a parking lot and wait for the cars on the main road to clear you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time someone in front of you is driving slower than you you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time someone tailgates you demanding that you get in the slow lane you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you get your car fixed you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you have to order a car part you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you sit in a traffic jam you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time the presence of a traffic cop demands you change your driving behavior you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you wait on a tow truck you are on someone else's schedule.

Yeah, gotta hate that freedom to go where ever and whenever one wants! 

 

It's certainly in the interests of an authoritarian government to control movement of the population as much as possible.

 

You mean anyone who does not want to depend on the government to get them from place to place?

 

If you are getting rides from friends, you are dependent on their schedule.  Likewise with public transit.

 

Any time you sit at a stoplight you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you wait to turn onto a major road from a parking lot and wait for the cars on the main road to clear you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time someone in front of you is driving slower than you you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time someone tailgates you demanding that you get in the slow lane you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you get your car fixed you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you have to order a car part you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you sit in a traffic jam you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time the presence of a traffic cop demands you change your driving behavior you are on someone else's schedule.

 

Any time you wait on a tow truck you are on someone else's schedule.

 

There's a difference between impacted and dependent on.  Likewise, a difference between initial dependence (someone teaches you to drive, and continuous (drives you everywhere).

 

Private transportation definitely impacts individual liberty, as every 16 year old in drivers' ed knows.  Populations with access to same need less "help" from the government.

 

Increasing oil costs may redefine how cars are propelled.  They are unlikely to dramatically impact their role.

There's a difference between impacted and dependent on.  Likewise, a difference between initial dependence (someone teaches you to drive, and continuous (drives you everywhere).

 

Private transportation definitely impacts individual liberty, as every 16 year old in drivers' ed knows.  Populations with access to same need less "help" from the government.

 

So your $9 in government help for driving is less than my $1 in help for transit? The new math?

 

And your assumption that 16 year olds are rushing to driver's ed is as outdated as your experience of what 16 year olds want.

^Yep, Pokemon, not Plymouth

There's a difference between impacted and dependent on.  Likewise, a difference between initial dependence (someone teaches you to drive, and continuous (drives you everywhere).

 

Private transportation definitely impacts individual liberty, as every 16 year old in drivers' ed knows.  Populations with access to same need less "help" from the government.

 

So your $9 in government help for driving is less than my $1 in help for transit? The new math?

 

And your assumption that 16 year olds are rushing to driver's ed is as outdated as your experience of what 16 year olds want.

 

My 19 year old niece is a CSU student who lives in Cleveland proper.  Politically rather liberal, urbanist by tempermant.  She used to regularly take the bus to class.  She bought her first car last spring.

Best way to prove you don't know what you're talking about? Anecdotal evidence.

 

The numbers disagree with you. Sorry.

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Listen, son...I don't know how old you are but I grew up during the cold war, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis and I served in the military during the Vietnam era, watching Russian Bear bombers at an installation in Alaska, so I know about the Soviet Union and what it did. I don't need your hypersensitivity. You don't even know me. Take a hike.

 

First, I'm not your "son."  Second, you don't know me, either, Methuselah.  Third, now you sound like Sarah Palin, understanding Russia because she could see it from Alaska.  You compared Ohio to the USSR based on the fact that we don't spend as much as you'd like on transit (!?!), and now you're pulling the age card on me?  You're doubling down on a losing bet.

 

Our transportation infrastructure funding is what it is largely because our system of government is not authoritarian.  It is a product of democratic vice, not authoritarian vice.  Democratic pandering, not authoritarian population control (E Rocc made that point and you somehow ran with it even further, when this should have gone in the other direction).  We funded it originally because people wanted to get out of the cities (the dirty industrial centers of the 1950s, not the cleaner and more vibrant downtown cores of today), and we continue to fund it because now people--voters, in large numbers--have at least some concept of how much they'd need to pay to sustain such form factors without generous subsidies.

 

Indeed, those of us who largely dismiss peak oil alarmism because of the likelihood of an electrified transportation sector arising before peak oil effects can do more than modest economic damage have to watch out for that trap ourselves.  Suburban development patterns would be fairly expensive to maintain even if the energy cost of driving were free.  Even surface streets are expensive to build and maintain, and limited-access highways are even moreso.  Thus I do continue to have real concerns about low-density, single-use, highway-dependent sprawl, even neither peak oil nor totalitarian population control are among those concerns.

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Listen, son...I don't know how old you are but I grew up during the cold war, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis and I served in the military during the Vietnam era, watching Russian Bear bombers at an installation in Alaska, so I know about the Soviet Union and what it did. I don't need your hypersensitivity. You don't even know me. Take a hike.

 

First, I'm not your "son."  Second, you don't know me, either, Methuselah.  Third, now you sound like Sarah Palin, understanding Russia because she could see it from Alaska.  You compared Ohio to the USSR based on the fact that we don't spend as much as you'd like on transit (!?!), and now you're pulling the age card on me?  You're doubling down on a losing bet.

 

Our transportation infrastructure funding is what it is largely because our system of government is not authoritarian.  It is a product of democratic vice, not authoritarian vice.  Democratic pandering, not authoritarian population control (E Rocc made that point and you somehow ran with it even further, when this should have gone in the other direction).  We funded it originally because people wanted to get out of the cities (the dirty industrial centers of the 1950s, not the cleaner and more vibrant downtown cores of today), and we continue to fund it because now people--voters, in large numbers--have at least some concept of how much they'd need to pay to sustain such form factors without generous subsidies.

 

Indeed, those of us who largely dismiss peak oil alarmism because of the likelihood of an electrified transportation sector arising before peak oil effects can do more than modest economic damage have to watch out for that trap ourselves.  Suburban development patterns would be fairly expensive to maintain even if the energy cost of driving were free.  Even surface streets are expensive to build and maintain, and limited-access highways are even moreso.  Thus I do continue to have real concerns about low-density, single-use, highway-dependent sprawl, even neither peak oil nor totalitarian population control are among those concerns.

 

You provoked a reaction from me because you come across as pompous and condescending (Methuselah? Oh please.). And equating my military service in Alaska with Sarah Palin? That's an insult. Listen, genius, I know a lot about the Soviet Union and I don't have to prove it to you or anyone else. That's right: I used the Soviet analogy. Get over it.

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Listen, son...I don't know how old you are but I grew up during the cold war, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis and I served in the military during the Vietnam era, watching Russian Bear bombers at an installation in Alaska, so I know about the Soviet Union and what it did. I don't need your hypersensitivity. You don't even know me. Take a hike.

 

First, I'm not your "son."  Second, you don't know me, either, Methuselah.  Third, now you sound like Sarah Palin, understanding Russia because she could see it from Alaska.  You compared Ohio to the USSR based on the fact that we don't spend as much as you'd like on transit (!?!), and now you're pulling the age card on me?  You're doubling down on a losing bet.

 

Our transportation infrastructure funding is what it is largely because our system of government is not authoritarian.  It is a product of democratic vice, not authoritarian vice.  Democratic pandering, not authoritarian population control (E Rocc made that point and you somehow ran with it even further, when this should have gone in the other direction).  We funded it originally because people wanted to get out of the cities (the dirty industrial centers of the 1950s, not the cleaner and more vibrant downtown cores of today), and we continue to fund it because now people--voters, in large numbers--have at least some concept of how much they'd need to pay to sustain such form factors without generous subsidies.

 

Indeed, those of us who largely dismiss peak oil alarmism because of the likelihood of an electrified transportation sector arising before peak oil effects can do more than modest economic damage have to watch out for that trap ourselves.  Suburban development patterns would be fairly expensive to maintain even if the energy cost of driving were free.  Even surface streets are expensive to build and maintain, and limited-access highways are even moreso.  Thus I do continue to have real concerns about low-density, single-use, highway-dependent sprawl, even neither peak oil nor totalitarian population control are among those concerns.

 

True enough, though precisely how important it is to people to maintain those patterns comes into question.  I suspect it's more important than most here think, and either public funds or technological breakthroughs will maintain it.  Fundamentally, that's the debate:  how important is it? 

 

You provoked a reaction from me because you come across as pompous and condescending (Methuselah? Oh please.). And equating my military service in Alaska with Sarah Palin? That's an insult. Listen, genius, I know a lot about the Soviet Union and I don't have to prove it to you or anyone else. That's right: I used the Soviet analogy. Get over it.

Then what was the primary way people moved around in the Soviet Union?

The fact that you thought it was a good analogy is almost as disturbing to me as the fact that you made it.  I'd feel better if you at least knew it was facile and hyperbolic.

 

Listen, son...I don't know how old you are but I grew up during the cold war, lived through the Cuban Missile crisis and I served in the military during the Vietnam era, watching Russian Bear bombers at an installation in Alaska, so I know about the Soviet Union and what it did. I don't need your hypersensitivity. You don't even know me. Take a hike.

 

First, I'm not your "son."  Second, you don't know me, either, Methuselah.  Third, now you sound like Sarah Palin, understanding Russia because she could see it from Alaska.  You compared Ohio to the USSR based on the fact that we don't spend as much as you'd like on transit (!?!), and now you're pulling the age card on me?  You're doubling down on a losing bet.

 

Our transportation infrastructure funding is what it is largely because our system of government is not authoritarian.  It is a product of democratic vice, not authoritarian vice.  Democratic pandering, not authoritarian population control (E Rocc made that point and you somehow ran with it even further, when this should have gone in the other direction).  We funded it originally because people wanted to get out of the cities (the dirty industrial centers of the 1950s, not the cleaner and more vibrant downtown cores of today), and we continue to fund it because now people--voters, in large numbers--have at least some concept of how much they'd need to pay to sustain such form factors without generous subsidies.

 

Indeed, those of us who largely dismiss peak oil alarmism because of the likelihood of an electrified transportation sector arising before peak oil effects can do more than modest economic damage have to watch out for that trap ourselves.  Suburban development patterns would be fairly expensive to maintain even if the energy cost of driving were free.  Even surface streets are expensive to build and maintain, and limited-access highways are even moreso.  Thus I do continue to have real concerns about low-density, single-use, highway-dependent sprawl, even neither peak oil nor totalitarian population control are among those concerns.

 

True enough, though precisely how important it is to people to maintain those patterns comes into question.  I suspect it's more important than most here think, and either public funds or technological breakthroughs will maintain it.  Fundamentally, that's the debate:  how important is it? 

 

That's half the debate.  It's always opposing forces: How important is it, and how expensive is it?

 

Many in the suburbs are aging.  Most suburbs also fall on the range of opinion from "Republican bastion" to "Republican battleground," including on traditional issues like defense.  What that means is that you have large numbers of suburbanites who want all of our current old-age entitlements (or more), all of our current defense spending (or more), all of our current highway spending (or more), and lower taxes.  You can hopefully see the central problem there.

Use of "Soviet Union" as a pejorative ignores that the worst of what occurred there ended with the death of Stalin.  It was no picnic from the mid-1950s onward, but there is a corollary with China under Mao and after.  It's also important to note that the Soviet Union was to some extent propped up by American companies and banks, and it is speculated that Wall St. wanted an oppressed communist world since it meant there could only be one "united states", not two countries competing to sell technology to that captive market. 

Wow, it's amazing how a comment from someone who came from the Soviet Union found that the only way he could enjoy transportation freedom in his new country was to be forced into paying a major up-front fee he could not afford. There was no other alternative to it. Is that freedom? He didn't think so -- hence his comment: "There is no freedom in America without a car." You can argue stats and labels and ideologies and connotations all you want. But his experience is his experience. It is unassailable.

It's pretty assailable to me.  All he was doing was coming to the realization that "freedom" does not mean "free stuff."

 

If you accept the logic that there is no freedom in America without a car, then you can just as easily repeat the exercise forever and say that there is no freedom in America without education, health care, food, clothing, housing, and all kinds of other things that yes, we actually sometimes expect people to pay for either partially or completely by themselves.

^Yes, the only freedom one wouldn't have would be to live "anywhere".  That is really no different than it was before the car.  Wherever there was no public transportation you needed some means of transportation, or you didn't live there.

Wow. If you put a car in the same list of basic needs as other things necessary for life, then you will never understand what he and others are saying here.

 

^Yes, the only freedom one wouldn't have would be to live "anywhere".  That is really no different than it was before the car.  Wherever there was no public transportation you needed some means of transportation, or you didn't live there.

 

Public transportation exists everywhere in Europe and Russia. Even the most remote state-route-quality roads have frequent bus services on them. Everyone has a bicycle. Everyone uses car services. Transportation is a variable cost. It is less than 10 percent of an average household budget. In America, it's 30 percent -- and higher in low-income households.

 

BTW, if you want to have a car in Europe or Russia, it limits where you can live. If you want to live near jobs, shopping, entertainment, etc. then you are living in the city and it is a major inconvenience to use, park, store, maintain and afford.

It's pretty assailable to me.  All he was doing was coming to the realization that "freedom" does not mean "free stuff."

 

If you accept the logic that there is no freedom in America without a car, then you can just as easily repeat the exercise forever and say that there is no freedom in America without education, health care, food, clothing, housing, and all kinds of other things that yes, we actually sometimes expect people to pay for either partially or completely by themselves.

 

The key was the use of the term "no", which reminds me of an inspector saying "all" the parts are bad when in fact 20% are.  There is, relatively, a lot more freedom when you have one.  Which indeed is part of why the Soviets limited them.

Soviets didn't limit car use because of its freedom. Cars weren't a priority because few could afford them. Same deal with Russia today. Same deal with much of post-war Europe. And it's becoming the same deal here as incomes decline.

 

Example1: My car-free friend in Chicago feels he has more freedom without a car. He called it his ball-and-chain. When he cut free of it, he was able to afford a nicer home, buy groceries when he wanted, buy more clothes.

 

Example2: Once I wear out my existing car, I'm going to have to make a tough decision on whether I will replace it. I rarely use my car, but it's paid off and I only pay $100/month insurance on it. I have an extended warranty. I buy gas only once every 2-3 months. But that's more than a GCRTA one-month pass, which will provide me with as much freedom to do what I want that money that I would have otherwise spent for a new/used car.

 

If you cut 10% of the $100+ billion we spend on roads per year, we wouldn't notice it. USA added 317,000 lane-miles 2002-2012 while driving declined. The amount of alternatives we could afford with that $10 billion would give the expanding number of poor and working class households more accessibility to jobs, education, shopping, which is much more important than mobility.

 

A car is a luxury. It's not a right. Access is a right.

Wow, you're really working that angle. My car-free friend in Chicago feels he has more freedom without a car. He called it his ball-and-chain. When he cut free of it, he was able to afford a nicer home, buy groceries when he wanted, buy more clothes.

 

If you cut 10% of the $100+ billion we spend on roads per year, we wouldn't notice it. USA added 317,000 lane-miles 2002-2012 while driving declined. The amount of alternatives we could afford with that $10 billion would give the expanding number of poor and working class households more accessibility, which is much more important than mobility.

 

It all depends on the definition of "freedom", which of course differs from person to person.  But a government which has limited transportation options has de facto gained more control over its people.  What it does with said control varies.

But a government which has limited transportation options has de facto gained more control over its people.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Soviets offered more transportation choices than America does today.

Soviets didn't limit car use because of its freedom. Cars weren't a priority because few could afford them. Same deal with Russia today. Same deal with much of post-war Europe. And it's becoming the same deal here as incomes decline.

 

Example1: My car-free friend in Chicago feels he has more freedom without a car. He called it his ball-and-chain. When he cut free of it, he was able to afford a nicer home, buy groceries when he wanted, buy more clothes.

 

Example2: Once I wear out my existing car, I'm going to have to make a tough decision on whether I will replace it. I rarely use my car, but it's paid off and I only pay $100/month insurance on it. I have an extended warranty. I buy gas only once every 2-3 months. But that's more than a GCRTA one-month pass, which will provide me with as much freedom to do what I want that money that I would have otherwise spent for a new/used car.

 

If you cut 10% of the $100+ billion we spend on roads per year, we wouldn't notice it. USA added 317,000 lane-miles 2002-2012 while driving declined. The amount of alternatives we could afford with that $10 billion would give the expanding number of poor and working class households more accessibility to jobs, education, shopping, which is much more important than mobility.

 

A car is a luxury. It's not a right. Access is a right.

 

You nailed it KJP.

But a government which has limited transportation options has de facto gained more control over its people.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Soviets offered more transportation choices than America does today.

 

Those "choices" were all monitored and controlled, far more than the US does.  A choice between a bus and a train, on the same route with a similar schedule, is less of a choice than using a car at one's own convenience.

 

"Access" may or may not be a right, but it's an abstract concept.  One may gain it simply by one's choice of residence. 

 

"Access" may or may not be a right, but it's an abstract concept.  One may gain it simply by one's choice of residence.  [/color]

 

Uh, no.  You can be forced to live miles away from work or shops or schools or whatever you want to be close to just due to zoning laws alone.  If I wanted to live within walking distance of work I couldn't because it's an industrial park.  No houses allowed.  Then there's minimum lot sizes, setbacks, parking minimums, height restrictions, fire department access requirements, and lack of sidewalks, even though there's plenty of room to build several houses or small apartment buildings. 

 

That's the kind of non-freedom having an automobile-dominated transportation system perpetuates.  It's the "cars are great servants but terrible masters" situation.  What at first seemed like an enabler of freedom, "hey I can go wherever I want whenever I want" became a ball and chain, "oh now I have to drive 30 minutes just to get to anything, whether I want to or not."  We're frogs being slowly boiled to death without noticing it. 

Example1: My car-free friend in Chicago feels he has more freedom without a car. He called it his ball-and-chain. When he cut free of it, he was able to afford a nicer home, buy groceries when he wanted, buy more clothes.

 

You just disproved your own point (or BuckeyeB's).  By this statement, you show that freedom absolutely does not require a car, and may even be enhanced without it.

 

Example2: Once I wear out my existing car, I'm going to have to make a tough decision on whether I will replace it. I rarely use my car, but it's paid off and I only pay $100/month insurance on it. I have an extended warranty. I buy gas only once every 2-3 months. But that's more than a GCRTA one-month pass, which will provide me with as much freedom to do what I want that money that I would have otherwise spent for a new/used car.

 

Another fine example of how the ex-Soviet guy was wrong.  My point exactly.

 

If you cut 10% of the $100+ billion we spend on roads per year, we wouldn't notice it. USA added 317,000 lane-miles 2002-2012 while driving declined. The amount of alternatives we could afford with that $10 billion would give the expanding number of poor and working class households more accessibility to jobs, education, shopping, which is much more important than mobility.

 

A car is a luxury. It's not a right. Access is a right.

 

And you lose me again.  I'm pretty sure "access to public transportation" (or "access to transportation" generally) is nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else where our actual rights are established.  Access is an amenity.  It is an amenity that can be affordably provided, that adds considerable social value, and is unreasonably resisted, including by too many of those who are on most other matters my ideological compatriots.  But it is not a right.  You cannot sue anyone for denying it to you.  You cannot compel anyone to give it to you.  You cannot demand reparations for the generations that had to make do with horses, wagons, and their own two feet, when a trip from Akron to Cleveland would have been a major undertaking.

 

This is the kind of rhetorical excess that makes people tune out when people start talking about actual threats to freedom and actual violations of rights.  You want to see evidence of America acquiring some dangerously Soviet characteristics?  Don't look at the highway appropriations bill.  Look at the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site">Chicago PD</a>.

 

"Access" may or may not be a right, but it's an abstract concept.  One may gain it simply by one's choice of residence.  [/color]

 

Uh, no.  You can be forced to live miles away from work or shops or schools or whatever you want to be close to just due to zoning laws alone.  If I wanted to live within walking distance of work I couldn't because it's an industrial park.  No houses allowed.  Then there's minimum lot sizes, setbacks, parking minimums, height restrictions, fire department access requirements, and lack of sidewalks, even though there's plenty of room to build several houses or small apartment buildings.

 

You have an interesting concept of "forced."  You are "forced" to do that because you cannot or will not move and/or find another job.  And I say that as someone who would basically eliminate most if not all zoning laws, including every one of those requirements you mentioned except fire department access requirements.  ("Lack of sidewalks" is an odd man out on your list, though, unless there are actually zoning ordinances out there that forbid sidewalks, in which case deregulation is even more urgent.)

 

More importantly, though, the link between zoning and autocentrism is not a given.  They go hand in hand as a matter of common modern practice, not as a matter of inescapable logic.  It would be possible to have a very autocentric land use pattern even with basically no zoning (in fact, this is basically exactly what Houston has).

Try living without a car for a month in everywhere in this country but 5 major cities and parts of about 20 others. I can't tell if you're intentionally being argumentative, you just don't know any better or you couldn't care less for those who don't earn the $15/hour necessary to afford a car without subsidy. Probably a little of each. Which tells me that debating with you on this issue is like trying to convince a serial killer to feel empathy for his victims.

Isn't this just an argument about the meaning of "freedom" and positive vs negative rights?

JFC, ease up and get back on topic.

Offered without comment:

 

Developing alternative energy sources is a matter of national security, Ray Mabus, Secretary of the US Navy, said Monday at a conference on climate change.

 

"Energy can be - and is - used everyday as a weapon," Mabus told the Climate Leadership Conference held outside the nation's capital.

 

Speaking to a room full of business leaders, scientists and representatives from non-profits and government agencies, Mabus said that unless the US has a homegrown source of fuel, the country will remain "hostage to global price increases."

 

The Navy must have the "ability to be at the right place all the time," he said, which depends on the Navy's "ability to have fuel."

 

This is why, by no later than 2020, at least half of the Navy's power will come from non-fossil fuel sources, he said.

 

"It's an issue of national security," Mabus said. "It makes us better at defending this country."

 

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2015/02/24/energy-can-be-a-weapon-fossil-fuels-pose-a-security-risk-us-navy

It would be possible to have a very autocentric land use pattern even with basically no zoning (in fact, this is basically exactly what Houston has).

 

Houston has all the same floor area ratio, setbacks, parking minimums, height restrictions, buffer zone requirements, and street geometry rules that codify sprawl.  The only thing that's different is the lack of specific use-type regulations.  So even if you wanted to build a house in an industrial park, you'd still have to meet a sizable number of zoning criteria.  Like I said before, if you wanted to move closer to work, you're physically prevented from doing so even if you can afford to buy the property.  And just find another job?  What world do you live in?