Re: Losing control of the fuel efficiency debate

I'm not saying there's no solution. I'm saying there is no solution that many people are comfortable with.

Loads of people live 50 miles from Manhattan, and take nice trains into the city to get to work. The problem with some cities is that they have no incentive to adopt these ideas. They also ignore what we now know about widening highways to reduce traffic: It only leads to more traffic.

It is not yet known when we can expect vehicles with vastly improved gas mileage. But, mass transportation is KNOWN to work, if some thought it put into it.

Reagan should have finished off Qadaffi.

I know what you meant.

Some areas or states simply have no public systems to enable taking mass

Nice if you have them. Here, if anyone suggests building trains, the first thing that happens is environmentalist whackos getting court injunctions to stop the laying of tracks. Much like people who say we need to stop buying foreign oil, but won't allow the building of refineries or drilling domestically. Much like those who want you in a

It's too late for that here.

We had an interesting situation here a few years ago. Along one of our major highways was an old unused rail bed. The highway carries lots of traffic from downtown to various sprawlville communities between 5 and 10 miles away. Advocates for light rail service pointed out that a train would cost less over any 10 year period than widening and maintaining the highway. The highway project won anyway. I think part of the problem is political connections to the construction industry. Matter of fact, I'm sure of it, based on comments from an insider here in my town.

Maybe in NY. Here, if something has remained unused for any length of time, some environmentalist will "find" and "define" a new sub-species of rat, bird, or bug in the area to ensure nothing is ever used or re-used.

The entire attitude can be summed-up thusly: People are vermin, and need to be eliminated to ensure the planet's survival.

Scott in Florida wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Since Ron Paul is the only Constitutional canidate for probly the last

Indeed. How do we nominate those who will be eliminated first?

Ask Earth First, PETA, or Greenpeace members. They all seem to be arbitrary enough to take the plunge.

he tried but the utility pole fell on his legs instead of his head.

So are you stupid enough to believe what a presidential candidate will promise you?

Our government could artificially lower the price of gas through subsidy. What price do you want, $2/gal, $1/gal? Know> Please explain to me what solutions were offered by the

And your unaware that every politician ever elected from both parties has immediately reniged on their campaign promises? As in "read my lips"

This is nothing more than campaign poofery. It will pass.

Ted

I've never noticed ideas like that with Greenpeace. Who told you to say that?

Very difficult but not impossible if one dares to think outside of the box. That box on 4 wheels has to be MUCH SMALLER and lighter.

First, you have to change attitudes. No amount of engineering will convince the majority of Americans they can live with a smaller car. I average 24 mpg in my full sized car, but frankly, I can live with something smaller myself. In Europe I'll get a small rental and accept it as normal. I do refuse to buy one of the big Land Barges though.

on Thursday 22 November 2007 08:00 am, someone posing as Nomen Nescio took a rock and etched into the cave:

This is actually a good article...

'A hypothetical Camry that weighed 2,525 pounds (1,148 kg), and had a 1.4 liter, 128-horsepower engine could accelerate to 60 miles per hour in 9.2 seconds, but would average 42 miles per gallon (5.5 liters per 100 km.) The same exercise applied to a Ford F-150 pickup would produce a vehicle that weighs 877 pounds less than today's vehicle, gets around on a 162 horsepower engine and averages 27 mpg, compared with 17.3 mpg today."

Now, I would not be driving a compact Camry or be found in a Ford truck, but the concept works.

If we all stop carpooling, we'd remove much of the weight from the car/truck and thus get better mileage.

I like that!

The Camry is not compact, it is the same size as all of today's other "full sized" cars, park one next to a 71 Torino, they are very close to the same size...

And said F-150 pickup wouldn't be able to get out of it's parking space when you actually tried to use it, i.e. tow something or load a few sheets of drywall.

And then there are those of us who need the 350/3500 class pickups, which get about 11 MPG. Try that idiotic "exercise" with my 3500 and it wouldn't be able to make it over a speed bump when loaded with the

As I noted before, until the public at large gets some education and understands the difference between "Efficiency" and "Economy", nothing of value will be accomplished.

on Monday 26 November 2007 08:35 am, someone posing as My Name Is Nobody took a rock and etched into the cave:

Funny how everyone disagrees with me.

All I know is I ride in a camry with the seat all the way back and my knees either hit the dashboard (if I'm a passenger) or the steering wheel (if I'm driving.)

Now, a buddy of mine has a '95 Camry which seems to have a little more room on the passenger side.

Don't even think of squeezing me in the back seat.

I much prefer my midsize Chevy Avalanche!