"Amtrak is going bankrupt"

They're more expensive than Greyhound, they take just as long, often you can get a plane ticket for $20-$40 more than the Amtrak fare and get there in a 10th of the time.

I can't imagine why Amtrak would be going bankrupt. I guess it's because we aren't given them enough funding.

**Gas prices will not make much change because our spoiled society would rather spend $5 for 10 miles vs. $5 for a train to take them 30 miles and faster!**

If you're talking about gasoline, $5 will take my sport ute 40 miles in less than 40 minutes, my car 55 miles or more. They also get me to my destinations on time, not an hour too soon or an hour and a half too late. I'm sure that $5 train ticket really costs more like $200. I doubt $5 would move a train 10'.

it will be interesting to see what happens. being in the petroleum buisness, i can tell you prices wil go up. and it would only take one major incident, explosion at a refinery, break in a main pipline, etc to double gas prices. so i wouldnt suggest taking a long term loan on a hummer. haha myself although i make my living in the gas and oil industry. i dont use much of it, i drive less than 6k a yr, given the choice most the time i ride a bike or walk, i hate driving.

I just seen a program.On FX about a hurrican wiping out a gas line.Then gas going up and all the panic that was created.Made me wonder just how close to reality it was to what could happen?It was a myth and not true but made me think.

I've ridden the "T" in Metro Boston during rush hour....Not a fun experience. My sister rides the commuter rail from Concord to Cambridge every morning and evening....also a nightmare. How would you increase the capacity of public transportation with very old infrastructure?

It is a problem. You're probably familiar with the cost overruns associated with the "Big Dig" (costs which every taxpayer in the Boston area -- driver or not -- got to pay). I would imagine that a serious modernization of older subway systems like the T and the NYC subway system would cost a fortune -- even before overruns. Maybe the answer is that going underground to fix things is not cost-effective, and that new routes/upgrades should be on land (on-grade light rail). Without that modernization, though, how does a mass transit system attract riders? Who covers those costs? They're strangling mass transit here in the Twin Cities because they're good at assigning the costs of roads to every taxpayer, but they want mass transit to pay its own way (!).

Interesting stat: 70% of all transit users have neither a car nor a driver's license.

That whole article is another example of being able to say anything with statistics. They refuse to examine "the chicken and the egg" of the situation: do folks not own cars because mass transit meets their needs, or do they make do with mass transit because they can't afford a car? Driving 12,000 miles a year at the IRS reimbursement rates costs around $4,000 a year, money in just about anyone's book.

Also, given the "non-person" status one has without a driver's license as identification, many states (if not all of them) offer state ID cards (my non-driving mother and non-driving brother each have one). Those cards probably don't count for the TTI's purposes. But you have to spend $$ for a driver's license; why bother if you cannot legally drive or if it's money you don't need to spend? It makes me wonder what point they're trying to make.

**being in the petroleum buisness, i can tell you prices wil go up. and it would only take one major incident, explosion at a refinery, break in a main pipline, etc to double gas prices.**

Lest you create some kind of panic with that remark, everyone should remember an explosion occurred at a BP refinery in Texas not long ago. It was the 3rd largest refinery in the country, and produces 3% of the gasoline used in this country...something like that. I can't see a 3% drop in capacity immediately causing a 100% increase in price myself. That explosion was expected to reduce that one refinery's capacity by only 5% for a time while they repair it. The price of fuel has dropped since that incident.

i was thinking more in terms of a large incident done on purpose. a anti american group, terrorists or tree huggers causing major damage to a refinery or pipeline, say during a slow time near holidays, when these places have a reduced crew. yes they had an explosion at the b.p. refinery yes it was bad, but from my point of veiw, not a major incident. and it wasnt done with the purpose of bringing the econemy to its knees. never the less costs go up and those costs will be passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices. so as i said you wil pay more in the long run.

**but from my point of veiw, not a major incident.**

What constitutes a major incident? That sounds like a pretty major facillity. Say that explosion wiped it clear off the map, it still only produces 3%.

****What constitutes a major incident? That sounds like a pretty major facillity. Say that explosion wiped it clear off the map, it still only produces 3%.****

A lot of price is factored in from psychology. I saw crude oil prices rise over a dollar in one day because an oil tanker capsized in the Gulf of Mexico - just one tanker! Of course, that was only a temporary inflation and subsided within a few days. However, if there was a terrorist attack against one of the refineries, the merchantile exchanges would go nuts. Gas would go through the roof as people would become increasingly afraid. Add the fact that we haven't built a gas refinery in about three decades, and that slight constraint in supply in an already contrained market would add even more "fuel" (pardon the pun) to inflation. My advice: By oil stocks. The price isn't about to go down anytime soon.

There is no magic price at which people will stop driving. As the price level rises, people will look at more fuel-efficient options when they go to purchase another vehicle. Gradually overtime, gas engines will be phased out in favor of Hydrogen fuel cells, with many steps in between. Anyone who has seen a supply & demand chart in Economics 101 can follow that logic.

As for seatbelt laws, there is one thing that hasn't been considered by posters in this forum: Negative Externalities, that is, those little cost that arrive from negligence at cost to the public. The reason for ticketing is the same reason for taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The inevitable costs that arise from their use is going to be paid for by the public. Example: Someone drinks & drives, smashes into a guardrail and takes out a few signs. This driver doesn't have insurance either, so the public will have to pay to replace the signs, guardrail, and his rehabilitation in a state funded program, which will be mandated by a public court. The same is true with seatbelts, the same guy in this drinking and driving accident suffers greater injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt, and doesn't have health insurance. We end up bearing the cost to the tune of an estimated $14 million a year.

*However, if there was a terrorist attack against one of the refineries, the merchantile exchanges would go nuts.*

I agree. That's what annoys me. Even the currant price isn't based on supply and demand. It's middle men playing games. I won't be buying oil stock, at least not much. Sure, their profits are up, but that doesn't translate into a giant dividend for common share holders. Like you say, perception and speculation drives the stock price up and down. Since oil companies have been cutting a fat hog for a few years already, I'm guessing a bunch of people already loaded up on oil stock and now there's a good chance it's over priced. Bubble pops and late comers get stuck holding the bag. I half way think the stock market exists so rich people can rip off the rest, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow, Martha Stewart, to name a few.

I agree with you assertion that large oil companies are far overvalued. The money to be had is in drilling & exploration companies that are acquistion targets or are expanding at a faster than average rate. But why play stocks? Most quality index funds have eleven-percent ten year annualized returns. That beats eighty-percent of money managers.

Another problem is that much of the public transportation in this area is from the suburbs to the central city. That worked fine when most of the jobs were in the central city, or at least located within the beltway, but that is no longer the case. The suburbs of Herndon, Tyson's Corner, Reston, Springfield, are all major employment centers now, with the Manassas area coming up fast in that category as well.

This is the point, as these mostly newer suburbs have expanded tremendously in recent decades - no consideration whatsoever was made for public transportation. As a result, each highway becomes immediately obsolete. If trains were build with the expanding suburbs line it would NEVER become obsolete. Poor planning and the more this country continues to do the same thing we will continue to get the same results.

Consider the current expansion in the SW, and FL - which will only result in the same traffic complaints of DC, Atlanta, etc.

Regarding driver's licenses, it seems to me that someone who could get a driver's license WOULD even if they didn't drive a car on a regular basis just in case they might need to.

Someone who couldn't get a driver's license, for whatever reason, would have to get an ID card instead.

It's worth noting that the only people I've ever known to have ID cards instead of driver's licenses had either never had a driver's license before or couldn't get a driver's license (due to unpaid tickets, for example).

As far as the costs for a driver's license vs. an ID card, here in Virginia a driver's license costs $4 per year (with a 5-year expiration) A photo ID card costs $10, also with a 5-year expiration.

That makes the incremental cost of a driver's license over a photo ID card just $10 over 5 years. It doesn't seem reasonable to believe that the additional $2 per year for a driver's license would be a reason not to get one in anything approaching normal circumstances. Certainly, very few of those who gave up their car for public transportation would be in that category, especially given the much-touted cost savings of doing so.

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT need car insurance to have a driver's license. So the additional costs of a driver's license are miniscule, and the benefits of being able to legally drive a car in an emergency or something would seem to far outweigh those costs.

Here is a bit of information which should help those who think anything can be done about traffic until real public transportation alternatives are available:

NJ Turnpike & CT Turnpike along I95 are basically identical roadways in distance 111-112 miles. Both are full of trucks, cars and traffic going north and south along the most congested population grid of the US.

Some think NJ has the cheapest gas in the region but here are some stats to calculate the cost per mile and note - the turnpike is still the fastest/easiest route (including Amtrak or NJ Transit).

Some data:
.Toll on the NJT from NY to Exit 1 (Delaware) is $6.45 (Cash). The distance covered is 111 miles
.The CT Turnpike turnpike from NY State line to Rhode Island is 112 miles. However, it charges no toll.

The price of gas in NJ due to reduced taxes on the turnpike for regular is about $2.00 p/gallon
The price of gas in CT due to regular taxes is approximately $2.20 p/gallon.

If you are in a 32 mpg mid-size sedan (Impala or VW Passat) your gas cost would be:
$6.93 in NJ one way
$7.63 in CT one way
(This excludes traffic slow-downs)

In NJ one would think they are paying 20 cents less per gallon but in reality are paying a MUCH MUCH higher cost per mile because the cost of spread out via EZ-Pass or toll. The point is, everyone in NJ or those traveling through NJ accept this because it is the only option. Now, if the government really invested in a high-speed train line (ie. Japan has 250 mile p/hr trains) and charged more taxes on gas - it would greatly reduce traffic as you would pay the same amount and get there faster.

I support toll roads. That is the nicest example of "pay as you go" there is. That is of course assuming that the toll money actually goes into maintaining the road.

toll roads are about the same as gas taxes, as the less you use or use it, the less you pay. so tuseage would depend on personal choices, as to what kind of vehical you drive, if you drive, how far you a willing to commute, etc. i decide to drive a small car live in the city and walk to work, i save. you decide to live in the burbs, drive a hummer you pay. works for me.

Sounds fair to me. I also support high occupancy toll lanes, too. I think Virginia should build more toll roads, as Illinois has done.

Indiana turnpike: $4.15 to go 129 miles (3.2 cents/mile)

Ohio Turnpike: $8.95 to go 239 miles (3.7 cents/mile)

NJ Turnpike: $6.45 to go 113 miles (5.7 cents/mile)

The prices charged on the NJ turnpike seem high at first glance, but things in general are more expensive on the east coast than they are in the midwest.

i would rather pay a few cents a mile to drive a smoothe well kept road, than drive the crappy crater filled roads we have in mich. last time i went to cleveland on the oh turnpike it was a smooth drive.

I'd rather pay a few cents a mile than to have to sit in traffic congestion. High occupancy toll lanes, anyone?

(By the way,they've been dubbed "Lexus lanes" by social commentators who believe that they are unfair to poor people. I haven't heard this argument about regular toll roads.)

No toll roads in OR. Everyone I've talked to that drove somewhere that has toll roads comes back and says we absolutely don't want that no matter what. They say it would be better to pay a higher fuel tax or something. The hov lane idea has been tried here and it didn't work. It just takes one lane pretty much out of service making the other lanes more crowded.

If the choice is between a toll road or no road at all, I'm going with the toll road.

Toll roads are unfair unless they are evenly spread across a region with viable alternate routes. Those who have to commute along the Dulles corridor in Virginia pay extra for the privilege of sitting in traffic. The Toll Road is just as congested as 66, 95, and the beltway. And it's the only east-west highway in that area (unless you're willing to drive an extra half hour south to 66, which is useless if you need to get into/out of DC during rush hour and don't have enough people for HOV). And they just raised the tolls--not to pay for road maintenance, but to pay for a shortsighted Metro extension that will be decades in coming and designed to be underutilized. Craziness.

Public transportation is a blessing vs. highways if it runs in parallel.

Tolls should not be used to subsidize public transportation. Neither should gas taxes, for that matter.

Tolls should not be used to subsidize public transportation. Neither should gas taxes, for that matter.

Why not? Public transportation in the form of buses and vanpools use gasoline or diesel fuel, too. And if mass transit can be appealing enough to take drivers off the road, that's that much less traffic that you have to contend with if you have to keep driving your car. What do you think be used to subsidize public transportation?

The function of mass transit is to provide transportation for people who cannot or choose not to drive.

Mass transit has NEVER been shown to make enough of an impact in traffic congestion to make that it's primary function. Except, perhaps, when a bus breaks down in the middle of an intersection--then it creates traffic congestion when none existed before.

To summarize, mass transit's function is NOT to reduce traffic congestion.

To summarize, mass transit's function is NOT to reduce traffic congestion.

Says who? Seriously, if that's the case, then maybe the whole thing should be re-examined. Maybe we're better off financially just giving vouchers to people who can't afford to buy a car, and maintaining fleets of on-call vehicles for those who cannot drive. Who needs schedules and buses and trains that can handle 60 passengers in one vehicle?

Congested metropolitan areas cannot build themselves out of the congestion by building more roads. Most of the California coast and Atlanta are testaments to the failure of that idea. What's left is either spreading out the load (traffic reports in LA start at 4 am) or finding some way to move people more efficiently. There are bonuses in the quality of air and in how much land is spared the steamroller and concrete mixer, too.

Frankly, if mass transit is only supposed to provide transportation for those who don't otherwise have it, we are wasting some serious money buying buses and rail cars and hiring expensive employees with special licenses to run and maintain them. But I don't think that's what mass transit is for. And you still didn't answer my question. :-) Even assuming your purpose for mass transit, how would you pay for it?

There actually is a study showing that it would cost less to just give a car to someone who couldn't afford one.

As far as paying for mass transit, fare increases. Metro hasn't wanted to increase their fares at all. I suspect that's because if they do, they might invoke some public inquiry into exactly how the money is getting spent. I know it was quite a shock to me to find out that one of their railcars--just a single railcar--costs $2 million.

On that note, research done by Randal O'Toole has shown that busses are far more cost effective than heavy rail transit, which is what Metro is. Gasoline taxes which fund road improvements benefit transit riders who use busses as well as other road users.

Gasoline taxes which fund heavy rail transit mainly benefit heavy rail transit users (owing to the limited congestion relief that provides), and not as much as if those funds were spend on bus transit.

I don't know about California and Atlanta, but I would NOT call DC a congested metropolitan area. Certainly, it does not have nearly the population density of Chicagoland, which, while it certainly has congestion, it has many non-interstate alternative routes (owing to it's larger number of principal arterial lane-miles per capita than the DC metro area) so there's no need to sit in the congestion if you can read a map.

In fact, my old neighbor lived in LA and he said, "I can't believe this place. Even in LA, if the interstate was congested, you could still take the surface streets to get where you want to go." He's right. For much of this area, the interstate is the only way to get around. There is no parallel, non-interstate road for the Beltway. There's only one for I95 (US1). For I66, it's US50. That's IT.

Finally, there's another way of looking at the problem: This area is not arranged in a grid pattern, but you can still look at block sizes. How's a 15-mile trip around the "block"? That's how far I'd have to drive leaving my house and making nothing but right turns to get back to where I started. That's typical for this metro area..not typical for even rural portions of, for example, Ohio (which have roads on at least a 1 mile by 1 mile grid pattern, making a 4-mile trip around the block).

You asked, "What Price Gas Before Traffic Subsides?"

We goning to find out if gasoline prices keep rising at the current rate, aren't we.

***Now, if the government really invested in a high-speed train line (ie. Japan has 250 mile p/hr trains)***

Ever since Route 80 was built in NJ I heard that there was going to be a monorail down the center median. It ain't gonna happen!
But why should the GOVERNMENT build trains? Do they build automobiles? The only change I would make is to have the feds own the tracks (as opposed to the rail companies) like they own the roads. But let the rail companies find investors to build the trains. NOT the government!

There actually is a study showing that it would cost less to just give a car to someone who couldn't afford one.

As far as paying for mass transit, fare increases. Metro hasn't wanted to increase their fares at all. I suspect that's because if they do, they might invoke some public inquiry into exactly how the money is getting spent. I know it was quite a shock to me to find out that one of their railcars--just a single railcar--costs $2 million.

I think, as with so many other areas of public spending, we need to examine with some new eyes. We've been shaving and trimming for a couple of decades now, yet we have not seemed to address some basic problems. It is obvious to me that some long-held beliefs ("Let's just add a lane in each direction") have proved themselves not to work; in the same light, maybe it should no longer be a given that mass transit is worth the large amount that is spent on it. That does not necessarily solve the problem of 15-mile trips round the block. But maybe we need to have the political courage to declare what we want as a goal and to see how to best meet it, not just perpetuate what is. I think we have a vested interest in some forms of public transit from the standpoints of congestion, fuel usage, and pollution (both air and eventual disposal). Whether than needs to take the form of $2 million rail cars or half-empty buses is something that ought to be discussed.

A goal? Wouldn't that mean that some politician actually had the cajones to actually take a stand on something that they consider important rather than listen to what the latest polls say? Guess you hit a nerve there....probably on my way to the teacups....

"I think we have a vested interest in some forms of public transit from the standpoints of congestion, fuel usage, and pollution (both air and eventual disposal)."

Traffic signal synchronization and even routine maintenance would reduce congestion, fuel usage, and pollution. These benefits are real, proven, and immediate, and they do not depend on changing driver behavior or "social engineering" (to get drivers to use public transportation instead).

Yet, many jurisdictions don't seem to consider their traffic signals a priority. Consider that the nation scored an average grade of D-minus for it's traffic signal systems, as the excerpt below from a letter sent by VDOT shows:

"Did you know that VDOT in Northern Virginia received an A-minus for it traffic signal system while the nation scored an overall grade of D-minus? Earlier this spring a group of transportation associations known as the National Transportation Operations Coalition released The National Traffic Signal Report Card. About 380 agencies in 49 states participated in the national traffic signal operation self-assessment that asked 50 questions in the areas of proactive management, signal system coordination, specialized operations, detection and maintenance."

The report here is here:

http://www.ite.org/reportcard/

Studies have shown that traffic signal optimization and maintenance is an inexpensive way to reduce traffic congestion, compared to the alternatives.

But, I suppose, it's easier for the average person to understand how public transportation is enivironmentally friendly..it's a "duh, everyone knows that" sort of idea. The mental image of an electric-powered Metro train filled with people goes right along with it.

It's far more difficult for the average person to understand an abstract concept like traffic light synchronization and the environmental benefits it provides. There is no warm-and-fuzzy mental image to go along with it. It's just a traffic light, it changes colors, what more is it supposed to do? Witness, even, the desire of some people to add red-light cameras to traffic signals. That the red-light violations are likely a symptom of a problem with the traffic signal itself is never considered--it must be a problem with the driver, to be addressed by enforcement.

That, I suppose, is why the average grade is a D minus. They just do what the general public wants them to do. If that's a D minus level of effort, that's what they get.

Here is a link that might be useful: Letter from VDOT

Only some traffic is people commuting to work. A lot of it is ego trips - driving the kids to soccer instead of them riding their bikes, and same in driving them to school. Also, some folks don't plan their shopping, and buy something almost every day. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who expect to spend money every day.

Here's a question for you - how come traffic is so much busier during the school year? You can't convince me that many more people are going to work every day!

I put $20 cash in my wallet for "emergencies". I buy gasoline on a debit card, same with groceries. That $20 will be there in a year from now. My purchases are all prety much planned.

In 1980, the median price of a new car was $3500. Today, it's not quite $35,000. People tend to ratio their transportation costs. In 1980, gasoline hit $1.20 per gallon, and most of the year, it was about 95 cents. When it hit $1.20 per gallon, you saw a slight reduction in driving, but not a lot.

Ratioing the price of fuel to the price of the vehicle, then, we won't see any visible reduction in driving until gasoline exceeds $10 per gallon.

Dramatic reduction in driving will happen when people once again concern themselves with how long their commute is, and select job or house accordingly.

We just bought a house and really struggled with the concept that it's almost (not quite) ten miles from work. But that was the closest we could find, and still get some land. To us, 10 miles each way seems very long. To combat this, we are going to look for one of those marvelous little Japanese cars from the mid-80s that got 60mpg. And on good weather days, I want to start cycling to work, but I'm pretty out of shape. Hopefully, I can use the cycling to get back into shape, too.

The only thing that will make a significant impact on traffic and fossil fuel usage is flat-out changes in personal lifestyles. And we Amercians have gotten ugly about that. I cannot remember a time when folks were more addicted to not changing their lifestyles than today.

WCB

I can guarantee you that the summer weekend traffic jams on I95 between Dumfries, VA and Fredericksburg, VA are NOT caused by people commuting to work. I think most of them are going to the beach, actually, although I am not sure.

"To combat this, we are going to look for one of those marvelous little Japanese cars from the mid-80s that got 60mpg."

I wish you luck. The closest I could find is a 1985 Civic Coupe HF, which I've never heard of or knew about until now. 54 highway MPG. It's a 2-seater. Nothing else I've found, save for a diesel Toyota (47 highway MPG), even comes close. I also hope you'll be happy with a manual transmission.

Most everything else with a manual transmission gets around 38MPG, which you can easily find in a car that isn't 20 years old...if you want an automatic I suggest skipping the 20-year-old cars because they mostly have 3-speed automatics and get worse fuel economy than many modern vehicles with 4 and 5/6 speed automatics.

Here is a link that might be useful: EPA Fuel Economy Guide

Seeing that this thread is still alive here is the bottom line. It will never happen. Nobody will walk or ride a bike
if they can use a car. Use a bike or walk in the pouring
rain ? I don't think so. People will just pay. Complain about it but pay. What about all the new-bees that just got their licence ? Do you think they will not use the car or truck they saved for years to get. NOT.

Traffic signal synchronization and even routine maintenance would reduce congestion, fuel usage, and pollution. These benefits are real, proven, and immediate, and they do not depend on changing driver behavior or "social engineering" (to get drivers to use public transportation instead).

I don't doubt that improving synchronization is a good idea, having experienced poorly-timed lights frequently myself. Routine maintenance, however, would require changing driver behavior. Cars, fuels, and lubricants have gotten much better, so the effects of poor maintenance are much less harmful than they used to be. But getting a vehicle serviced properly and on time obviously is something many people don't want to bother with.

Sorry, I mean routine maintenance for traffic lights--like checking on a regular basis that the vehicle detectors are functioning, that the signal controller is configured the way it should be, etc. A lot of jurisdictions rely upon complaints, instead of being proactive about these problems.

As far as routine maintenance for cars, emissions inspection programs make routine maintenance (particularly oil changes) even more important. I've heard about cars failing simply because the oil hadn't been changed and had too much fuel dilution, leading to a high HC reading.

Posted by: cowboyind (My Page) on Sat, Jun 4, 05 at 7:59

That's right; lifestyle choices are highly changeable, and economics is one of the biggest factors affecting them.
If gas were to go to $5 a gallon, you can predict these things with absolute certainty:

-Big SUVs will be all but unheard of
-The only people who will drive full-size pickup trucks to work will be those who use them in their job
-Traffic will decrease significantly as people move closer to work, carpool, and eliminate unnecessary driving
-Public transportation options will increase almost immediately, starting with shuttle and commuter buses

The bottom line is, Europeans can better afford their $5 a gallon gas than Americans could, since most Europeans actually save a little money rather than spending every last penny, and because quite a few European countries have a higher per-capita income and standard of living than we do. If $5 gas makes it here, you'll probably see MORE attempts to economize than what you now see in Europe, because people here can less afford those high prices.

I agree 99 % with the cowboy , which is pretty good for me.

Economics will force our nation to be more and more like Europe - not a bad thing....

I disagree about the idea of toll roads - to directly pay someone sitting on his butt to use "his" road is wrong now and was wrong 100 years ago..

The highways belong to the people - they are ours - the present system (gas tax) is the best way of maintenance and new highways.

Around here, SE PA, traffic is not really too bad, growth seems to be regulated some, but we definitely and obviously need another lane surrounding Harrisburg . The "highway/traffic designers" seem to have a penchant for creating congestion rather than fixing it..

brian703, I have had a CRX HF and also a Toyota Starlet. With careful attention paid to driving style, you can achieve 60 regularly.

Re: The EPA economy guide - I have always EXCEEDED EPA estimates with a manual transmission, and never been able to achieve them with an automatic. Fundamentally, I look at the weight of the vehicle, and coefficient of drag, and then make sure it doesn't have an oversize engine, and I know it's going to be OK.

As far as a manual, you bet. I HATE automatics. Can't stand 'em. GM, Ford, and Chrysler got the US public to dislike manuals by making only awful ones, with heavy clutches, and rubber-banding shift linkages. That's the only reason manuals are getting hard to find.

If you buy about a 20 year old car, it typically weighs 500-800 pounds less than a modern model, due to the absence of airbags. My 1983 Audi 4000S (a fairly luxurious car), routinely delivered 42-44 MPG. That's not a diesel, but it was fairly sluggish on acceleration. But it was light - only about 2300 pounds. today, it's hard to find a car that weighs so little.

Today's cars also have too many frills - every electric motor adds weight. I fundamentally don't like anything built new today.

I've never been spooked at older vehicles. the Japanese cars just go and go and go, and then when they finally have trouble, they are fixable, and then they go and go and go. I've had numererous Japanese vehicles with 400k, 500K, etc, miles on the original, non-rebuilt engine.

-Big SUVs will be all but unheard of
**-The only people who will drive full-size pickup trucks to work will be those who use them in their job
-Traffic will decrease significantly as people move closer to work, carpool, and eliminate unnecessary driving
-Public transportation options will increase almost immediately, starting with shuttle and commuter buses**

earthworm, imo that might happen with a sudden large increase in fuel cost, but only temporarilly. Your prediction is based on what I believe is the false assumption that we are incabable of building personal vehicles powered by something other than petrolium. We use petrolium because it's here and it's cheep. Take it away and we'll be using something else in no time. jmo

westcoast, What a bunch of nonsense. 800 lb airbags, jeesh. You've had numerous 500k mile jap cars with original engines? Uh huh. Portland, OR. That says it all. Run for city counsel, you have the same grip on reality as they do.

It's a chemically-enchanced grip on reality, I'm sure.

I can tell you that gas prices have adversely impacted small business people.
The local furniture store has instituted a $35 for all deliveries, even local (less than 6 miles round trip).

A deli owner I know now closes on Mondays because his business has dropped off considerably and it's too costly for him to stay open 7 days a week.

A garden center with which I am familiar has also instituted a charge, albeit $20 for local deliveries. However, overall, their business is down by 10% as are most garden center businesses.

I just got hit with a fuel surcharge for a vacation trip I am taking with a group.

People might not stop driving, but they will adjust their spending.

As another poster did, I have looked at the fuel cost to go to the grocery store in another town vs. staying in town and paying higher prices at the local supermarket. It's still more economical for me to drive 10 miles to the less expensive store, but if prices keep going up that might not be the case. Of course, it would depend on how much the supermarkets raise their prices also.

I believe if gas prices can go much above $3/gal., we will enter into a recession; $5/gal. would bring on a depression.

>>I believe if gas prices can go much above $3/gal., we will enter into a recession; $5/gal. would bring on a depression.Bingo. Most of the suppositions seem to work in a vacuum. (no, not a Miele:)
Social engineering by adjusting prices doesn't work, never has and never will. It WILL hurt the economy and individuals. All these high prices will cause inflation, a new round of COLA's and even more distress for Ford and GM. Welcome to he new world, just like the old one.

Well, we beat $3 per gallon and no recession. I don't think we'll see traffic patterns change before $10 per gallon.

ok, as far as gas prices effecting driving habits, 3.00 was my limit. I refused to pay above 2.99 and with my BIG SUV, I was able to hold out during the 3.39 price hikes. a little economy driving kept me over 'till the gas prices went down. I have not had to pay over 2.98 at all.
now on the trafic patterns and wasting fuel. I live in NC in the charlotte area. around here all freeway exchanges have traffic lights at the exit ramps. traffic always backs up for the left turns traffic during heavy times ALWAYS piles up onto the freeway and cloggs flow. if the government would pay for cloverleaf interchanges and limit development directly adjacent to interchanges traffic would not back up and flow would be MUCH smoother, reducing wasted fuel and emmissions.
a large vehicle that gets 18-26 MPG with a 42Gallon tank can travel quite a long time to wait out the temporary price hikes.
now if the prices actually went up, not just fearmongering temp hikes, I would have to dump my Suburban and drive a more economic vehicle.
this thing takes over 120.00 to fill with regular, a continous price hike in gas would be impossible for me.
John

**Well, we beat $3 per gallon and no recession.**

Too early to make that claim. It takes months to determine when a recession has started and when it ends.

IMO, if the government would get behind nuclear power for electricity, and make a goal of developing an alternate fuel such as hydrogen for cars, the entire energy issue would go away. I'd bet just announcing the impementation of such a plan would make the price of gas/oil fall 50% in no time. Not going to happen though with all the money the oil industry throws at elected officials. It really won't happen with a guy with ties to the industry in the white house.

Nuclear power scares me. I admit I am not the most educated on the subject, but I think it would of best if we hadn't discovered it for a few hundred years, when everyone is smarter, and understands what to do with the waist, and how to do everything safe. I think you are right about hydrogen, making gas/oil worth a lot less. I also think it would have a dramatic effect on our foreign policy. Both Republican, and Democratic administrations have had to turn a blind eye to what ticks off the people that hate America so much.

Bob