Someone has placed a wreath of yellow roses on the spot where the car was interred. Could it be that we’re at the point where we must recognize that a way of life is dying, or at least transforming?

Pics:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=8700431#8700431

Crash deaths are paid for by insurance that motorists buy. The more influential government employees tend to live in less air-polluted parts of town. Where there’s muck there’s brass, and there’s also brass elsewhere, in this case.

Motorists now subsidize government. That is why the civil servants who live off that subsidy do not “focus on alternative developments, alternative zoning (to permit businesses and residences to be located closer together)” as ‘dg’ recommends.

According to an Excel file downloadable from BP, nuclear reactors in 1965 produced as much electricity as would otherwise have required 5.8 million tonnes of oil. They don’t give a number for 1957, but extrapolating the 1965-1970 trend backwards suggests 1 million tonnes.

Last year, 635.5 million tonnes. There has been a “fantastic paradigm shift”; it’s going on now. They look different from inside.

That said, I doubt that your fancy fuels and batteries will ever provide enough mobility to sustain the sprawly suburbs of Phoenix or Raleigh. It’s a good thing they were built so cheaply, because they’ll eventually be torn down to make room for more compact communities. And in case you were getting ready to make a comment about carpetbagging New Yorkers, the tearing-down will be done by the children of today’s proud SUV owners, who won’t be able to afford to live two miles from the nearest supermarket. Even with the wonders of biodiesel.

DeFazio of course is simply wrong. But his irresponsible letter once again represents how the Democratic party is backsliding on progressive transportation policy.

Even though most Streetsblog readers don’t live in Oregon, I’d urge you all to give his office a call to register a complaint and let them know somebody’s watching.

DEFAZIO – WASHINGTON DC OFFICE
(202) 225-6416

It’s extremely frustrating to see the Democrats stonewall on every progressive transportation initiative, from improved fuel economy standards, to congestion pricing in NYC, to California’s right to enforce its own clean air rules.

For most of the time since 1957 it’s been the Democratic party that has controlled Congress. It isn’t only the fossil fuel lobby that’s responsible for the backwards state we’re in.

But that does not mean we should continue to build sprawl? Right now, people in cities such as the ones listed above have to drive absolutely everywhere, even to get a gallon milk or to take their kids to school. Alternative fuels are all fine and good, but we should also focus on alternative developments, alternative zoning (to permit businesses and residences to be located closer together), and alternative thinking. Maybe what is needed is not fewer cars, but fewer trips.

I think our new time capsule should consist of ALL the Hummers and an apology.

The ostrich-like mindset that this isn’t a problem today, therefore we don’t need to worry about it tomorrow is just going to doom us to a major economic contraction when the cost becomes too much for the economy to bear.

Before World War II, all American cities were built around the pedestrian and around public transportation. That was changed by post-war policies supporting freeways and sprawl development. Now, we need equally strong policies supporting transit and transit-oriented development.

It bothers me because most people fail to realize that outside of a few major cities having a car is not an option for most people. It is a requirement. Our country is vast, and no country this size has great public transit in every city.

What I am trying to say, is the car is a way of life, and we need to accept that. Instead we need to work on better fuels, and better batteries for electric cars. We do need to improve public transit, but in many areas that’s just not something that will be done quickly.