EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 20, 2008 13:14:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 20, 2008 21:56:54 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 10:11:02 GMT -5
Austin, I don't have time to read an article right this second, but judging from the title I presume this concerns a proposal to shift from an 8 hour workday 5 days a week to a 10 hour day, 4 days a week. If so, then I really like the idea on an individual basis, but I don't think it will be practical as a policy. When my dad was a police officer, they worked 4 on 3 off, 10 hour days. He liked it and as from my point of view it would be a plus. Aside from the advantage of cutting fuel costs getting to and from work by 20%, I just like the idea of a 3 day weekend every week in exchange for a slightly longer workday. But like I said, I don't know that this has a lot of potential as an energy reducing National Policy plan.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 21, 2008 10:23:58 GMT -5
In some cases, as hifi mentions above, this doesn't work. But I've occasionally had this, and it's awesome. That extra day frees you up for errands or just relaxation. The other thing which needs to be considered is telework. It's already a great idea as urban regions expand, and broadband and cell phones make it practical. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 21, 2008 20:50:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 21, 2008 21:22:11 GMT -5
It seems likely to me that we will see a heavy conversion to toll roads in the next decade or so in response to this funding source (gas tax $) drying up a bit. Which is fine by me -- if I choose to live in the exurbs and drive my car to work in an urban center, I probably should shoulder more of the financial burden for building new highways. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 22:40:49 GMT -5
It seems likely to me that we will see a heavy conversion to toll roads in the next decade or so in response to this funding source (gas tax $) drying up a bit. Which is fine by me -- if I choose to live in the exurbs and drive my car to work in an urban center, I probably should shoulder more of the financial burden for building new highways. Note to all: The following comment is following an adult beverage (or two) but wanted to make it public: I see your point with regards to uses of the highway. If you use the roads more, then in a "free market" you should cover more of the expenses for said roads. My hesitation comes from the casual thought (no insult to casualhoya .... casually ...) that even though more of the taxes collected would then come from those who use the roads more, what would guarantee that more of those revenues are actually allocated to said roads ... or roads in general for that matter? That, in a nutshell is my problem with government as we have it today. Note to all: it is hard to create any "tax" system free from such potential shortcomings, but that is not the point. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 21, 2008 22:51:23 GMT -5
I told you all that I had a couple ...
to finish the thought, obviously those tax revenues would be greater for those who use the roads more. But what incentive would there be for anyone to ever create new roads? I would guess that "toll roads," like all other business models these days, would be based of accurate input. Garbage in ... garbage out ...
If the toll roads are the solution to people overall driving less, then I would anticipate that part to be a success. But at what cost?
People tend to drive somewhere for a reason. Granted, I am old enough to remember the "Sunday drives" ... (although I just wanted to make it home in time for the 4pm NFL game) ... my point is that if toll roads are the solution to excessive fuel costs, then I don't think we have actually found one. All political posturing aside, the only real benefit I see in that is the likelihood that more will be handed over to the private sector. If so, then the roads will likely be better, but there will be another whole can of worms. If these are no longer "public" roads, then ....
clearly, that isn't much of a solution. (aside from the "more handed over to the private sector part")
If it isn't handed over to the private sector, then all we have done is enlarge one of many inefficient departments of government.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 22, 2008 13:23:03 GMT -5
A bi-partisan step in the right direction: www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/22/energy-freedom/"Today, Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman and Ken Salazar will join Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Sam Brownback in introducing the "Open Fuel Standard Act of 2008." This legislation would put into law a promise made repeatedly by America's car manufacturers: to make half their new cars Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) by 2012. These are cars that can use gasoline, alcohols (ethanol or methanol from whatever source) or some combination. It would require foreign competitors to do the same, then up that percentage to 80 percent by 2015. Companion bipartisan legislation is expected shortly to be put in play in the House of Representatives." |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 22, 2008 18:24:36 GMT -5
Ethanol is a stunning example of good intentions with disastrous consequences. On paper, ethanol is great. It's renewable, clean, American, and easy to integrate into our infrastructure. Those flex fuel tanks cost about $100 per car, and aside from that it requires almost nothing from your average American. A miracle cure, by the looks of things. When I first heard about it, I thought it was great, even though I couldn't stand either of the two people I saw supporting it (George Bush and Tony George). But the reality isn't so nice. At best, ethanol creates a moral dilemma, and at worst it could become a humanitarian disaster and a fundamental blow to the very concept of human rights. First off, ethanol really doesn't save us from oil. American ethanol comes from corn, which is a very inefficient source for ethanol. For one thing, growing corn uses a lot of fossil fuels (driving the tractors, etc.), and the refinement process is also very energy-intensive. In the US, that means using more fossil fuels. The result is that we're using just as much fossil fuels as we were before, only instead of using them in the car, we're using them behind the scenes. So corn-based ethanol is fossil fuel neutral at best, and has the nasty side effect of using up huge amounts of food (more on that below). The Brazilians use sugar, which is more efficient, but their program has already caused a lot of deforestation by farmers who want to expand their fields to capitalize on higher prices (the price of sugar has doubled thanks to ethanol). Now, those problems can probably be overcome with better technology, but that still leaves the big moral problem of using food for fuel. Before ethanol, humans and machines survived off of different things. Humans eat plants and animals, while machines "eat" wood, oil, natural gas, coal, and such. Humans can't eat coal, machines can't eat corn, so there was never any clash. You could power your machine without affecting humans' food supply. Biofuels, and ethanol in particular, change all that by making machines run off a human food supply. Now powering your machine takes food away from people, or at least makes it more difficult for people to get food due to higher prices. Food prices have already shot up, and we're barely even scratching the surface of ethanol yet. For now, the answer has been to simply grow more food, and that's worked okay, although poorer countries are already feeling the strain of higher food prices. But what happens if ethanol use takes off, and demand for it soars? There isn't enough food on the planet to feed all the people and all the cars. At some point, it's going to become a case of feeding either people or cars, and since the Western countries have the money, their cars will get fed before a lot of people get fed. Is it really moral to fill your car with ethanol when the corn behind that ethanol could feed somebody who's starving? I don't think so. I hate to use the "starving children in Africa" argument, but this is one case where it's appropriate. So why are we using ethanol? The simple answer is that the corn farmers' lobby made an excellent sales pitch, and they took advantage of politicians from both sides of the isle, from Bush to Obama, who were desperate to bolster their green credentials. It's pure politics. Some articles on the issue: Summary of the drawbacks: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stmUN: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7514677.stmMore UN: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7381392.stmWorld Bank: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7493789.stmOxfam: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7472532.stmEffects of rising food prices (due in large part to diverting food to biofuel use): news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7445570.stmnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7444212.stmnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7432164.stmAnd that's just from a 5 minute search on the BBC website. Search more and you'll find a lot more. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 22, 2008 19:25:42 GMT -5
It seems likely to me that we will see a heavy conversion to toll roads in the next decade or so in response to this funding source (gas tax $) drying up a bit. Which is fine by me -- if I choose to live in the exurbs and drive my car to work in an urban center, I probably should shoulder more of the financial burden for building new highways. I'm undecided as to whether there will be a big conversion. And I don't think I agree that if I live further away that I should necessarily shoulder more of the burden than someone who lives closer. There are all sorts of government services closer in for which I may have little to no need, yet for which I will remain on the hook as a taxpayer. Interestingly, to hifi's point, I was reading this point around the time he was posting: link: blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/07/last-post-for-browns-fiscal-non-rules/I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that my move to the exurbs will probably finance roads and road maintenance through property and sales taxes and the such. However, in the category of unintended consequences, I am inclined to agree with Andy Grove: link: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aC9rYRwCL_q4&refer=exclusive |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 22, 2008 21:48:28 GMT -5
hifi: the way I understand it, gas tax money is currently designated for highway funding by the legislature. I assume that toll road revenues could simply be treated the same way. As far as losing The Great Public Roadways of America to the private sector is concerned, I could care less. Driving is not a protected right. Having a paved road near your property is not a protected right. It is in the interest of local areas to build transportation infrastructure that promotes development. For many years in America, that meant building bigger and better roads ( Exhibit A). I am not sure that is the case now. Although the construction of new subdivisions in sprawl-land has not ceased, many American cities are investing in and promoting types of development and transportation infrastructure that rely less heavily on public roadways. Perhaps the "Sunday Drive" is a fond memory of yours, but as gas prices rise and our transportation infrastructure changes, a new generation of Americans is likely to develop memories (just as fond as yours) of playing in neighborhood parks on Sunday afternoons. ed: can you show me any data that suggests Americans want to buy these flex fuel cars? Has anyone actually seen one of these things on the road, despite their being available? Follow-up question: how many more Priuses, Smart cars, Yarises, Fits, Civic Hybrids, and Insights have you seen on the road than Flexfuel vehicles? In my opinion, foreign auto manufacturers are already making fuel-efficient vehicles that lead toward energy independence -- this proposed program is just a giant barrel of pork for Detroit. FewFAC: Sure, toll roads don't fund themselves, but people still have to buy gasoline. I'm not suggesting that if America makes a wholesale switch to toll roads we won't need the gas tax anymore. I'm simply suggesting that toll road revenues might a) help make up for the losses in gas tax revenues; and b) put more of the tax burden for new road construction on those who are causing the need for new roads to be built. As for your move to the exurbs alleviating your need for other social services (which ones?) I say the same thing I said to hifi -- who cares? Tax policy is full of examples where we put the hurt on those who cost the rest of us more in one specific area. Have you bought a pack of cigarettes recently? Also, it is my guess that most people who move to the exurbs probably weren't using too many public services in the first place. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 23, 2008 6:45:54 GMT -5
ed: can you show me any data that suggests Americans want to buy these flex fuel cars? Has anyone actually seen one of these things on the road, despite their being available? Follow-up question: how many more Priuses, Smart cars, Yarises, Fits, Civic Hybrids, and Insights have you seen on the road than Flexfuel vehicles? In my opinion, foreign auto manufacturers are already making fuel-efficient vehicles that lead toward energy independence -- this proposed program is just a giant barrel of pork for Detroit. Flex fuel (i.e. ethanol capable cars) are basically impossible to distinguish from normal cars. The only change is a $100 fuel tank modification. I'm sure a lot of people already own flex fuel vehicles without knowing it. In Brazil all new cars for the past few years have had to be flex fuel. Ethanol's advantage is that it's the one 'green' fuel that can be substituted for oil with very little adjustment. It's disadvantages are the humanitarian effects I pointed out above. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 23, 2008 10:51:15 GMT -5
With regards to toll roads: I'm not saying that it wouldn't help "solve" the problem of too much driving. That is to say I'm not suggesting that increases in toll roads wouldn't strongly encourage people to drive less. What I am saying is that I'm not sure that should be the ultimate goal. Sure, some incentive to drive less is fine to a degree. Carpool lanes for instance have that effect. In and around many big cities they have carpool lanes on majoy highways or interstates. Basically, one or more lanes are reserved for cars with 2 or more people in them. At rush hour, often being able to drive in those semi-private lanes means the difference between getting to work on time or getting home after work in time to make a movie for example. I think that is a positive derived from encouraging people to drive less. I don't have any statistics, but I would guess that such dedicated lanes have resulted in some decrease in traffic as people are more inclined to ride together rather than each taking his own car. But more intrusive measures such as a major broadening of toll roads is not an ideal solution. In economic theory, creating/increasing such tolls will cause a decrease in travel. Exactly how much of the decrease comes in the form of traveling together to split the costs (a good thing), taking alternative routes (a neutral thing) and not making the trip altogether (an arguable bad thing) is uncertain. The point is that our cultrure has needs to get from point a to point b. The general idea that making such a process difficult or expensive enough to dissuade some from doing so is the wrong solution. We need to work on making such travels easier, faster, cheaper, safer etc... This topic is a classic example of flawed theory. It isn't very far from the nonsense that our city commissioners said just last year. Some of you will remember the thread, but basically they said that they wanted to make traffic so bad and parking so impossible to find that people would walk, take the bus or not make the trip at all.
Sorry, that is a ridiculous "solution" to a problem. At best, it transfers one problem to another.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 23, 2008 11:15:32 GMT -5
Even with tolls, highways never pay for themselves, they're always going to be subsidized. I would think any person looking to build private roads would shy from engaging in such a money-losing operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 23, 2008 20:47:33 GMT -5
hifi:
I am not suggesting I support toll roads as a solution to getting people to drive less. People should be able to drive as much or as little as they want. Nice strawman, though.
What I am suggesting is that roads cost money, and as the cost of transportation rises in America we are likely to see a reduction in both the need for superhighways 40 miles from dense urban areas AND funding for such superhighways. However, there will continue to be a need for road improvement and maintenance. It is my opinion that those of us who choose to use the roads and cause new overpasses in the exurbs to be built should pay more to fund them than those who do not, the same way that someone who rides the bus or subway buys a ticket.
The idea that the federal and state governments should continue to fund free public roads at the rate they did during the era of supercheap gasoline seems silly and wasteful to me.
If someone chooses to drive long distances to work, fine. As I have stated previously in this thread, I am one of those people. But I and others should be prepared to pay more for our commutes, for similar reasons to why a ticket from West Falls Church to the Capitol costs more than a ticket from Metro Center to the Capitol.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 23, 2008 20:58:42 GMT -5
Even with tolls, highways never pay for themselves, they're always going to be subsidized. I would think any person looking to build private roads would shy from engaging in such a money-losing operation. Los Españoles disagree with you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cintra |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 24, 2008 9:44:50 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 24, 2008 10:29:48 GMT -5
Even with tolls, highways never pay for themselves, they're always going to be subsidized. I would think any person looking to build private roads would shy from engaging in such a money-losing operation. Los Españoles disagree with you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CintraDamn you, employer filter! (wikipedia is blocked here) |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 24, 2008 16:11:02 GMT -5
FewFac, Thanks for the SFS dissertation and the Clancy scenarios. You've shown that our relationship with China is important. Congrats. I never said it wasn't. I just said that energy independence (and preventing our economy from collapsing and lowering our massive trade deficit and reliance on China by stopping the importation of a couple hundred billion dollars of oil a year) is more important in the short term and should therefore be the President's #1 priority. Here's the great thing--he can focus on energy AND work on our relationship with China as a secondary goal (preventing Iran from getting nukes should be his #1 foreign policy goal in my opinion, but hey, China can be #1 if you want). Here's the thing though--if we don't get our act together in regards to energy, our economy will collapse, and then China can do whatever it wants. I didn't mean to imply you didn't think our relationship to China wasn't important. I just see a rather dismissive or flippant attitude--or rather a significant downplaying--regarding China in general that I wanted to highlight, not that this is necessarily your position, that seems to be growing into apathetic nonaction. I wouldn't necessarily push for Reaganesque military expansion, but any discussion regarding energy has to recognize that a prime driver of energy costs currently relates to China, and the explosion in demand expected over the next 20-40 years from China and India have every possibility of further throwing the supply/demand curve out of whack. How that remains incapable of pushing the regulatory environment toward incentivizing alternatives beyond mere talk is beyond me. I will meet you halfway on that. I do recognize the tremendous increase in demand that will certainly, positively, without-a-doubt happen in the next decade as India and China continue to develop. But the underlying precursor to such discussions is constantly that we are "running out" of oil, or even worse, already running out of oil. I recognize the idea that we are dealing with a somewhat limited resource. But I am not convinced that the situation is nearly as dire as made out by many. There are vast expanses of oil yet to be tapped at all, not to mention the huge reserves that we have set aside as a safety net. That being said, I am not the head in the sand ostrich, oblivious to any potential dangers. I guess the point is that, as with the global warming issue, there is reason to be prudent and to use care and concern, effectively erring on the side of caution. But that is not the same as the "sky is falling" attitude that some show now. We aren't "running out of oil" nor is the earth "warming" ... at least to the impending doom level that some suggest. All of that being said, I think we need to drill and use more of our oil while at the same time subsidizing research and development in the areas of alternative/renewable sources. Solar and wind are the obvious one to me, but the entire biodiesel market seems rather potentially rewarding as well. |
|
