Tesla Cars...almost IMO

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

Does no one agree about my suggestion to drive less, improve public transit, revitalize our rail system support local economy, etc? :eh:

I agree!
But I live in East Jesus, rural cow country. I know living out here makes me less green in transportation use, but it does have it's rewards: more room to grow my own food, more property to grow more trees, the "slow life", etc. etc. And the "slow lifestyle" promotes driving less.

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

The fact there isn't high speed electric trains like in Europe in the northeast corridor speaks to the power of the corporations.

brianlux wrote:

Does no one agree about my suggestion to drive less, improve public transit, revitalize our rail system support local economy, etc? :eh:

You don't think a corporation would not want to have high speed rail and make tons of money off commuting???

polaris_x

Jeanwah wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

we do not need fossil fuels to power electric cars ... right now renewables offer the cheapest form of new power generation out there ... same price as coal and 1/10th the cost of nuclear ... big difference is once you build renewables (solar, wind) - it's free energy ... we don't need to blow up mountain tops to get the fuel ...

But they need to be plugged in and that energy supplied is most likely, right now, a fossil fuel. Until we have charging stations that are powered by renewable energy, the electrics do use the fossil fuels (unless you live in a solar or wind powered home...)

I'm with you though, it's the right direction.

for sure ... just saying that there needs to be a shift in policy not only on the vehicle side but on the energy side as well ...

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

You don't think a corporation would not want to have high speed rail and make tons of money off commuting???

double negative ... haha

i think i know what you are saying ... the problem is that all these "innovations" require significant subsidies from the gov't ... if the gov't doesn't build interstates and remove old rail lines, the automobile would suffer ... same with their subsidies on gasoline ...

to electrify the rail corridors in the northeast makes perfect sense but the gov't isn't interested in spending that money on infrastructure (although there are some rumblings now) ... and that is the power of the automobile lobby ...

in europe - you can get to and from places with ease and in very fast times because they've put the money into the infrastructure ... but they are still somewhat a people driven democracy vs. a corporate driven one in america ...

brianlux

Jeanwah wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Does no one agree about my suggestion to drive less, improve public transit, revitalize our rail system support local economy, etc? :eh:

I agree!
But I live in East Jesus, rural cow country. I know living out here makes me less green in transportation use, but it does have it's rewards: more room to grow my own food, more property to grow more trees, the "slow life", etc. etc. And the "slow lifestyle" promotes driving less.

Funny you should mention that. I live in West Jesus, semi-rural cowboy wannabe country. And yes, in green terms, same advantages/disadvantages here.

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

in europe - you can get to and from places with ease and in very fast times because they've put the money into the infrastructure ... but they are still somewhat a people driven democracy vs. a corporate driven one in america ...

I don't know how it works in Europe, but they must have a lot less red tape to dance through. I imagine that since Europe is (i imagine) more compressed then the U.S., they were more open about thinking of commuting issues many decades earlier.

I think having high-speed transit on the east coast would be great. I also think it would be a very costly pain-in-the-butt to achieve. Hell, when I lived on Seattle, they could not come to any agreement on how to put in a rail system for local commuting. Someone was always appealing or fighting it because it would be an eyesore or lower property values. Seattle kept making adjustments to the point that the finished product would not really have any impact on commuting. I can't imagine the logistics of doing it on the East Coast.

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

in europe - you can get to and from places with ease and in very fast times because they've put the money into the infrastructure ... but they are still somewhat a people driven democracy vs. a corporate driven one in america ...

I don't know how it works in Europe, but they must have a lot less red tape to dance through. I imagine that since Europe is (i imagine) more compressed then the U.S., they were more open about thinking of commuting issues many decades earlier.

I think having high-speed transit on the east coast would be great. I also think it would be a very costly pain-in-the-butt to achieve. Hell, when I lived on Seattle, they could not come to any agreement on how to put in a rail system for local commuting. Someone was always appealing or fighting it because it would be an eyesore or lower property values. Seattle kept making adjustments to the point that the finished product would not really have any impact on commuting. I can't imagine the logistics of doing it on the East Coast.

Unfortunately, I think you've summed it up exactly. The arguement against high speed rail vs. rebuilding existing runs along the lines that costs and logistics of high speed are prohibitive (not to mention your point that no one can seem to agree on anything anymore) and that rebuilding existing is more feasable and would provide good service (i.e. better than what we have now). It's as though we had our chance years ago (around the time Europe developed high speed) but blew it- mainly due to our automobile addicition. And we really are addicted to autos and the withdrawl from that addiction is going to be difficult at best.

polaris_x

Political indecision is not by chance.

Wobbie

whoprincess wrote:

imalive wrote:

we have some dumb bitch legislator here in Utah who thinks hybrid owners should pay an extra tax because they don't pay their "fair share" of the gas tax but still use our roads :roll: . I'm pretty sure this is the worst state legislature in all of america.

Trust me, there is NO state legislature that comes even close to the ineptitude of Texas'.

It's not a contest I would want to win, but I'm telling you, UT legislature = 99% morons.