Kit et al.,
I've been following this debate as much as I could, in between driving to
Pennsylvania and flying back home again to Manitoba. When I left Manitoba on
March 02, gas was 67.5 c/L, along the way it ranged from 1.449US$/gallon
(Ohio Turnpike) to 1.569 US$/gallon (Eau Claire, WI). Last night, when I
landed in Winnipeg, I noted that the price had crept up to 69.5 c/L, a less
than warm welcome to go with the -8 C temperature and a stiff (40-60km) N
wind.
I sense a general "holier than thou" attitude to which I may have
contributed with my comments about SUVs. It's always "the other guy" who is
responsible for the "excess" use of gasoline and who is to blame for the
current "short fall."
Let's be realistic: public transport in the West is terrible because 1)land
is (was) cheap and 2)gasoline was cheap. Comparing the price of gas to that
of soft drink is just that, a comparison between apples and oranges. Public
transport is only viable if the population density is high enough and people
can be "coerced" into using public transport. Unless we are forced to, we
don't want to be squeezed closer together and put up with postage-sized lots
with grass that can be cut with scissors rather than with riding lawn
mowers.
I recall, back during the 1973(?) oil crisis, listening to somebody calling
in to a San Antonio. TX, radio station, complaining about the high cost of
gas and asking what he should do because he had to drive 20 miles to get to
work. The radio show host didn't give him the obvious answers: sell the
house and move closer to work, find a place of work closer to home, use a
bike, or car pool.
I have nothing against SUVs if they are used what they are intended to be
used for. Hauling a soccer team or a hockey team to a practice may make
good environmental sense. Using a 5000 lb SUV to drive a 110 pound person
to the corner store to buy a quart of milk, to me, does not, regardless of
the price of gas.
Maybe the price of gas will result in fewer SUVs; maybe it will lead to a
higher population density and maybe it will lead to more car pooling. Let's
face it, gasoline is probably being consumed faster than it is created and
it will just be a matter of time when it's gone.
Good to hear your comment about nuclear power. The anti-nukes were falling
over themselves with glee when Ontario Hydro (temporarily) shut down some of
the nuclear generation stations two years ago. It didn't take them long to
realize that shutting down nuclear power plants didn't make much
environmental sense unless there is a accompanying reduction in electricity
consumption. However, we have become so used to air conditioning, that
Ontario Hydro had to press fossil fueled stations into service. Within a
months there were complaints about air quality (or the lack thereof) and
respiratory problems. Duh!!
As to diesels, can anybody explain to me the economics of truck transport?
On my two recent forays into the US by car, from Las Vegas, NV, to Pinawa
last December and last week from Pinawa to the Pittsburgh area, I was amazed
by the amount of truck traffic. Let's see, each truck needs a driver and
has its own diesel engine. I saw the odd train with piggy-backed truck
trailers, one (or two) train engineers and two to three diesel engines.
For what it's worth,
Chuck Vandergraaf
'52+4
----------
From: Kit Hildreth[SMTP:kithildreth@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday March 09, 2000 2:04 PM
To: tdowling@gesb.wa.gov.au; edherman@concentric.net
Cc: morgans@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: PT revisited
From: Terry Dowling <tdowling@gesb.wa.gov.au>
"Here's how I define overuse of cars:
Overuse of cars (yes, maybe overuse of gas is a better term) is
using
cars for commuting when trains and buses would do the job more
quickly and
with a lot less pollution. "
******
Y'know if one lives back east, where there is a pretty good Public
Transport
infrastructure - left over from the days when everybody DID NOT
drive
vehicles, by the way - your suggestion makes sense. Suggestion: come
to
sunny California and use "Public transport" for a week or so for
your
business. What you will find is: It's more expensive, inconvenient
and
stretches a 24 hour day out to 48 - that's how much time you'll
lose. If
it's less than 4 miles, I use my push bike for similar reasons as
you,
allowing time and gear for puncture repairs(3 a week!); if less than
two, I
walk if time is not pressing - the weekends in other words.
Otherwise the
Car gets it every time, except when going to SF on weekends where
time
schedules don't matter much. One other thing, since the demise of
Nuclear
power, most of our electricity is produced by Hydro-Carbon fuelled
generating plant with no pollution controls. Similarly Diesel
vehicles are
inadequately equipped with pollution control equipment as well. Most
of our
pollution comes from those, NOT from pollution controlled cars!
Saving
pollution? I doubt it, frankly.
I rest my case.
Kit Hildreth
|