• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tire Pressured

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
it has been interesting to watch the regressive McCain campaign and repubs preach offshore drilling as the major step to help solve this gas problem. it has been interesting also to see int he last week the lies consistently coming out of these same cavemen trying to spin a small comment obama made in a town hall meeting into reflecting and being a focal point of his energy plan.

it has been amusing to see the right wing, always the preachers of individual responsibility, leap to ridicule a suggestion that would rely on individual responsibility.

what is even more amusing is that this small offhand comment, about one of the little things we can do as individuals, is pretty much on par with the offshore drilling mantra the repubs have taken as the grail of energy.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/



"We could save all the oil that they?re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 in Springfield, Mo.
Not overinflated (though it sounds like it)
True

UPDATED. This item has been updated, but our ruling didn't change. See below.

Sen. Barack Obama injected a startling claim into the debate on energy, asserting in a Missouri town hall meeting that the country could save more gas from inflating its tires and tuning up its cars than would be gained from drilling more off its coasts.

?There are things that you can do individually, though, to save energy,? Obama said in the July 30, 2008, appearance. ?Making sure your tires are properly inflated ? simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they?re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.?

Sen. John McCain and his allies ? who advocate lifting the federal moratorium that bans drilling in some areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the U.S. coasts ? immediately mocked Obama for the claim. The McCain campaign even offered to send ?Obama Energy Plan? tire gauges to anyone who sent in a donation of $25 or more.

The McCain campaign?s assumption seemed to be that Obama?s claim was utterly implausible. And, we admit, it kind of sounds that way. But is it?

Under-inflated tires ? to say nothing of poorly tuned cars ? are actually a serious problem, as government agencies, industry groups, conservationists and outside experts have been saying for years. (The Obama campaign even cited a number of instances when prominent McCain supporters echoed the call for more public awareness about tire inflation.)

?A lot of people are driving around on severely under-inflated tires,? said Robert Sinclair, Jr., a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. ?Try riding a bicycle with under-inflated tires. It?s hard for the human engine to push it ahead. Pump it up, it seems like you?re gliding on air.?

The same thing happens with a car. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by .4 percent for every 1 pounds-per-square-inch drop in tire pressure, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The best estimate available, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is that at least a quarter of drivers are cruising around on under-inflated tires. In April, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data, to extrapolate that 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires.

That?s an estimate, to be sure, and not one from a published, peer-reviewed study. But remember, Obama said we ?could? save all the oil available from offshore drilling in the protected areas ? not we ?would? ? so if the claim is merely plausible he?s on solid ground.

So how much oil is available offshore? According to the latest assessment from the Minerals Management Service, the mean estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil in the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently under moratorium is about 18-billion barrels (see here.)

But it couldn?t all be extracted immediately. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That?s 200,000 more barrels per day.

After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that?s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.

And remember, an estimated 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost annually due to under-inflated tires.

And we didn?t even talk about tune-ups. (Repairing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test improves gas mileage by 4 percent on average, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Fixing a more serious problem, such as a bad oxygen sensor, can improve mileage by up to 40 percent, the agency says.)

All of the numbers in this analysis are estimates, we should emphasize. Oil industry experts told us estimates of the amount of oil offshore and how fast it could be extracted vary widely, and the Energy Information Administration?s number is fairly optimistic. Likewise, it?s highly unlikely any public awareness effort could change behavior enough to save 2.8-billion gallons of gasoline per day.

For these reasons, we ruled this claim to be True.

Update: After we published this item, McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb called to dispute it, citing a Government Accountability Office letter of Feb. 9, 2007 that says tire inflation wastes 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline instead of the 2.8 billion estimate we used.

The letter says: "The Department of Energy?s designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on under-inflated tires."

That estimate falls just under the estimated 1.4 billion gallons a year from increased offshore drilling.

But that doesn't persuade us to change our ruling, for three reasons. First, 1.2 billion gallons in possible savings from proper tire inflation is still in the ballpark of the 1.4 billion gallons from drilling. Given that all of these numbers are estimates, it's hard to say the difference between these two numbers constitutes a falsehood.

Second, it would take years of work to start producing 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline from oil pumped offshore -- the Energy Information Administration estimate contemplates production beginning in 2017. And the oil reserves would not be bottomless. Conceivably, the savings from tire-pressure correction could begin immediately and last indefinitely, thus easily overcoming the marginal difference in the estimates provided by the McCain campaign.

And finally, none of this takes into account the impact of tune-ups, which Obama mentioned as part of his claim. If Department of Energy estimates of 4 percent mileage improvement for better-tuned cars are true, that alone would push the total savings above the estimated drilling yield.

Goldfarb also pointed out that barrels of oil, in addition to yielding 19.5 gallons of gasoline, yield other products as well, such as jet fuel, lubricants and feed stocks. Point taken, but Obama's statement was made within the context of the current drilling debate, which has been about increasing the supply of domestic oil to ease the strain on the U.S. transportation sector.

In the end, estimates are all we have to work with here. Estimates of oil production, estimates of gasoline savings. For our purposes in evaluating Obama's claim, all the available evidence shows that he's on solid ground in saying that better car and tire maintenance would save as much gasoline as drilling would generate. We appreciate McCain's campaign pointing out a GAO source we'd missed in our original research, but it's not at odds with our original ruling, True."

 
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best. At worst simple maintenance one should do on their car anyways for reasons including better mileage.

These articles from many news sources racing to defend Obama on this is amusing. Long term tire pressure doesnt alleviate foreign oil dependancy. And if Obama and the left think tire pressure should be a center piece of energy policy by our govt. Then it explains why they continue to look so damned clueless on this issue in the eyes of the American people.

Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.
 
You know what else would save a lot of gas? Just coasting a little bit more. I started coasting longer before stop signs and traffic lights. The last tank of gas got me 26.6 mpg versus the 24.1 previous to it. Of course, I'll have to keep recording it to make sure the difference is more than just within the margin of error.

edit: that's 99.9% city driving.
 
Originally posted by: nonameo
You know what else would save a lot of gas? Just coasting a little bit more. I started coasting longer before stop signs and traffic lights. The last tank of gas got me 26.6 mpg versus the 24.1 previous to it. Of course, I'll have to keep recording it to make sure the difference is more than just within the margin of error.

edit: that's 99.9% city driving.

Another thing that saves gas mileage is better road infrastructure. Instead of people sitting in bumper to bumper traffic they can flow freely. But try getting the powers to be to build better roads and not plow it into mass transit.

Of course the ultimate gas save is having people working from home. But I see neither candidate talking about this in their policy speeches.

 
McCain and the Repubs aren't "just preaching off-shore oil drilling". They are calling for throwing everything at the energy problems. Off-shore oil drilling is only part of the solution and ignores the proposals for the development of oil shale, converting coal to liquid fuel, nuclear power, plug-in hybrids, and other forms of alternative energy.

If Obama really wants to help gas mileage, maybe he should push for the repeal of the ethanol mandate and ethanol subsidies he voted for. That helped drive up fuel prices and food prices while reducing gas mileage by anywhere from 2-10%.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.

:thumbsup:

That is one of the main reasons I like him. I like how he is willing to change his views and policies based on a mixture of both what the people want and what he has come to learn that is best for the country. I hate how a lot of politicians are nothing but a bunch of stubborn mules who refuse to change their ways out of fear that the public will just point fingers and say, "I told you so! You were wrong!" Screw that. Screw what they think. Do what is best and be done with it.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best. At worst simple maintenance one should do on their car anyways for reasons including better mileage.

These articles from many news sources racing to defend Obama on this is amusing. Long term tire pressure doesnt alleviate foreign oil dependancy. And if Obama and the left think tire pressure should be a center piece of energy policy by our govt. Then it explains why they continue to look so damned clueless on this issue in the eyes of the American people.

Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.

You realize that energy policies include conservation policies, right? And you know that Obama doesn't think tire pressure should be the centerpiece of his energy policy, right? I mean, why would you even suggest things that ridiculous?
 
Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
trying to spin a small comment obama made in a town hall meeting into reflecting and being a focal point of his energy plan.

It wasnt a "small comment". Obama has repeated it plenty of times and defended it.
 
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
trying to spin a small comment obama made in a town hall meeting into reflecting and being a focal point of his energy plan.

It wasnt a "small comment". Obama has repeated it plenty of times and defended it.

Why would he not defend it? It's a good idea?
 
Just ran across a rebuttal to the piece in the OP about information from the EIA.

Politicians have a knack for citing statistics that support their positions. Those who are opposed to increasing domestic supplies of energy are especially adept at citing statistics that make it seem as though it is ?not worth it.? Government reports, while not all wrong, can be rife with such statistics.

Recently, for example, some have pointed an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that estimated the amount of oil we could produce on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) if the drilling ban were lifted. EIA estimated this to be approximately 200,000 barrels per day. 1

Unfortunately, this figure ? and the data it was based on ? is fatally flawed. For example:

* 200,000 barrels per day is roughly equal to the daily production rate of just one new offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The Thunder Horse oil production facility, which will be on line this year, is designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day. 2 The Atlantis oil platform currently producing in the Gulf of Mexico has a production capacity of 200,000 barrels per day. 3

Despite these facts, the EIA projects that lifting the bans that prevent production on 85 percent of the OCS acreage surrounding the lower 48 states will yield an amount equal to that which can be produced from just one of these platforms. Obviously, the projections are flawed.

The EIA assumed that technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in off-limits areas of the OCS total 18.2 billion barrels, based on the Department of Interior?s Mineral Management Service?s Report to Congress (February 2006). 4 But technically recoverable resources are based on current technology and economics.

Historically, technological improvements and on-site exploration and development have increased technically recoverable resource estimates. For example, world proved oil reserves were estimated to be 521 billion barrels in 1971 when oil was $1.25 per barrel ($6.61 in 2007 dollars) and are estimated under present technology to be 1,317 billion barrels at an average price per barrel in 2007 of $67. 5

* EIA?s analysis is based on crude oil prices averaging around $50 per barrel in 2005 dollars 6 (or around $80 per barrel in 2030 assuming a 2 percent per year inflation rate), well below the current price of around $120 per barrel.

* EIA?s analysis assumes that exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS are based on data from fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Since the majority of the resources under moratoria (55 percent) are off the coast of California, the analysis should have used data from the Santa Barbara Channel, which would have provided more realistic assumptions and higher production levels.

* EIA?s analysis assumes that leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Yet, off the coast of California, some of these resources have already been leased. A report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratoria were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. 7 Further, Department of Interior Secretary Kempthorne announced in July a new 5 year plan that will allow leasing to start 2 years earlier, in 2010, implying production from currently unleased areas could begin as early as 2015. This new 5 year plan includes the areas under Federal moratoria. 8
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best.

Do you think that a "find more to use" policy is better than a "use less of what we have and save the rest" policy?

That is what is appears to be coming down to. Many people want to drill more so that it will be cheaper and we can go on about our blissful, ignorant ways instead of realizing that this is a finite resource and the less we drill and the less that we use today....the longer it will last us into the future.
 
Properly inflated tires will no doubt improve fuel mileage. We have known this for many years. The problem is - how do we make sure everyone has their tires properly inflated?
Will this require another government agency? The Dept of Tire Inflation?

Some of us fill our tires with nitrogen and keep them at the proper pressures, most do not. I don't think I would count on all of my fellow Americans to do this so it's not a workable solution.

As far as tune-ups go, most cars on the road today don't require tune-ups. Cars built since the late 80's and early 90's have on board computers which keep the engine properly tuned. Older cars did require regular tune-ups but there just aren't enough of them to make a big impact.

We are going to require more oil. It would be best to get as much as we can from here to keep as many dollars in our own economy as we can.

 
how tire pressure relates to decreasing our dependency on oil is equivalent to duct tape being an effective counter measure to bio-terrorism.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best. At worst simple maintenance one should do on their car anyways for reasons including better mileage.

These articles from many news sources racing to defend Obama on this is amusing. Long term tire pressure doesnt alleviate foreign oil dependancy. And if Obama and the left think tire pressure should be a center piece of energy policy by our govt. Then it explains why they continue to look so damned clueless on this issue in the eyes of the American people.

Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.

You realize that energy policies include conservation policies, right? And you know that Obama doesn't think tire pressure should be the centerpiece of his energy policy, right? I mean, why would you even suggest things that ridiculous?

Where did I say it was a centerpiece?
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best.

Do you think that a "find more to use" policy is better than a "use less of what we have and save the rest" policy?

That is what is appears to be coming down to. Many people want to drill more so that it will be cheaper and we can go on about our blissful, ignorant ways instead of realizing that this is a finite resource and the less we drill and the less that we use today....the longer it will last us into the future.

The drop in demand from the United States and other developed countries will not make up for the continual increase in demand from India, China, and other developing countries.

High fuel prices are killing the economy right now and future demand will keep it high. Securing more supply of not only oil but natural gas as well (that's being blocked by the OCS ban as well) will help secure reasonable prices that won't drag the economy down until we reach a point to where our dependence on oil is negligible.

There are other things we should be doing as well such as :
- getting rid of the ethanol mandate which increases price and reduces fuel efficiency while increasing the price of food
- come up with one, maybe two or three, gas blends for the entire nation instead of the hodge podge of a couple of dozen of blends that artificially restricts supply regionally and increases price.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best.

Do you think that a "find more to use" policy is better than a "use less of what we have and save the rest" policy?

That is what is appears to be coming down to. Many people want to drill more so that it will be cheaper and we can go on about our blissful, ignorant ways instead of realizing that this is a finite resource and the less we drill and the less that we use today....the longer it will last us into the future.

I like the drill what we have and develop an alternative source policy best. These all or nothing policies fail in the real world.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: nonameo
You know what else would save a lot of gas? Just coasting a little bit more. I started coasting longer before stop signs and traffic lights. The last tank of gas got me 26.6 mpg versus the 24.1 previous to it. Of course, I'll have to keep recording it to make sure the difference is more than just within the margin of error.

edit: that's 99.9% city driving.

Another thing that saves gas mileage is better road infrastructure. Instead of people sitting in bumper to bumper traffic they can flow freely. But try getting the powers to be to build better roads and not plow it into mass transit.

Of course the ultimate gas save is having people working from home. But I see neither candidate talking about this in their policy speeches.

Mass transit is the way to go. Internal combustion gas engine powered cars only get a max of 25% efficiency. In many areas of the country there just aren't enough room for new roads, and roads have their capacity too. It's a horribly inefficient to build 8 lane highways (like Houston) JUST to accomodate peak time traffic, while the infrastructure itself is deteriorating even when it isn't being used. Then you have the right of way acquisition which costs a lot of money (maybe not, now that property values have plummeted in so many areas. There is only so much you can improve on for traffic efficiency. Maybe another 10% if they automate everything from speed limit to flow control, but that's still a lot of congestion.

Once an area has a decent mass transit system in place, force people to take it by raising gas taxes to subsidize mass transportation. Link car registration to displacement of the engine.

Kill off short haul air traffic and only allow medium-long haul to use the air space (general avation is another story).
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best. At worst simple maintenance one should do on their car anyways for reasons including better mileage.

These articles from many news sources racing to defend Obama on this is amusing. Long term tire pressure doesnt alleviate foreign oil dependancy. And if Obama and the left think tire pressure should be a center piece of energy policy by our govt. Then it explains why they continue to look so damned clueless on this issue in the eyes of the American people.

Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.

You realize that energy policies include conservation policies, right? And you know that Obama doesn't think tire pressure should be the centerpiece of his energy policy, right? I mean, why would you even suggest things that ridiculous?

Where did I say it was a centerpiece?

So you were postulating something you knew wasn't true? That's even worse.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Here is the deal with this. Tire pressure isnt an energy policy. That is a conservation policy at best.

Do you think that a "find more to use" policy is better than a "use less of what we have and save the rest" policy?

That is what is appears to be coming down to. Many people want to drill more so that it will be cheaper and we can go on about our blissful, ignorant ways instead of realizing that this is a finite resource and the less we drill and the less that we use today....the longer it will last us into the future.

The drop in demand from the United States and other developed countries will not make up for the continual increase in demand from India, China, and other developing countries.

High fuel prices are killing the economy right now and future demand will keep it high. Securing more supply of not only oil but natural gas as well (that's being blocked by the OCS ban as well) will help secure reasonable prices that won't drag the economy down until we reach a point to where our dependence on oil is negligible.

Very valid argument/point. You are right on a lot of it, but I would question the increase in those other developing nations vs. the decrease in current developed nations coupled with advancements in technology.

If we are able to "tough it out" until more viable options become more and more cost effective, we might be able to avoid having to drill more. Now, I'm not saying wait until we are completely behind the 8 ball, but we can hide behind it a little more if we can somehow convince the criminals...er congress to cut spending on some of the discretionary fronts.
 
Originally posted by: RY62
Properly inflated tires will no doubt improve fuel mileage. We have known this for many years. The problem is - how do we make sure everyone has their tires properly inflated?
Will this require another government agency? The Dept of Tire Inflation?

Some of us fill our tires with nitrogen and keep them at the proper pressures, most do not. I don't think I would count on all of my fellow Americans to do this so it's not a workable solution.

Stop being stupid and taking things to extremes. Inflating tires is pretty simple and doesn't require government intervention or regulation. IMO if you can't inflate your tires you probably shouldn't be driving a car.

Originally posted by: RY62
As far as tune-ups go, most cars on the road today don't require tune-ups. Cars built since the late 80's and early 90's have on board computers which keep the engine properly tuned. Older cars did require regular tune-ups but there just aren't enough of them to make a big impact.

We are going to require more oil. It would be best to get as much as we can from here to keep as many dollars in our own economy as we can.

That's true but tune ups also include replacing your air filter. It's not a huge improvement but it's a good idea for efficiency.

I'm on the fence on drilling here. If it can be done without resulting in significant environmental impact I don't see a problem. We're not going to see any impact anytime soon but we're not going to get off oil anytime soon either.
 
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: nonameo
You know what else would save a lot of gas? Just coasting a little bit more. I started coasting longer before stop signs and traffic lights. The last tank of gas got me 26.6 mpg versus the 24.1 previous to it. Of course, I'll have to keep recording it to make sure the difference is more than just within the margin of error.

edit: that's 99.9% city driving.

Another thing that saves gas mileage is better road infrastructure. Instead of people sitting in bumper to bumper traffic they can flow freely. But try getting the powers to be to build better roads and not plow it into mass transit.

Of course the ultimate gas save is having people working from home. But I see neither candidate talking about this in their policy speeches.

Mass transit is the way to go. Internal combustion gas engine powered cars only get a max of 25% efficiency. In many areas of the country there just aren't enough room for new roads, and roads have their capacity too. It's a horribly inefficient to build 8 lane highways (like Houston) JUST to accomodate peak time traffic, while the infrastructure itself is deteriorating even when it isn't being used. Then you have the right of way acquisition which costs a lot of money (maybe not, now that property values have plummeted in so many areas. There is only so much you can improve on for traffic efficiency. Maybe another 10% if they automate everything from speed limit to flow control, but that's still a lot of congestion.

Once an area has a decent mass transit system in place, force people to take it by raising gas taxes to subsidize mass transportation. Link car registration to displacement of the engine.

Kill off short haul air traffic and only allow medium-long haul to use the air space (general avation is another story).


All of this has been tried across major metropolitan areas and failed. Mass transit even in the best cities as reduced congestion by single % points at best while consuming large amounts of the transportation budget. The amount of money plowed into it could be better served expanding the road infrastructure.

Forcing people to do something is nothing more than oppression.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: nonameo
You know what else would save a lot of gas? Just coasting a little bit more. I started coasting longer before stop signs and traffic lights. The last tank of gas got me 26.6 mpg versus the 24.1 previous to it. Of course, I'll have to keep recording it to make sure the difference is more than just within the margin of error.

edit: that's 99.9% city driving.

Another thing that saves gas mileage is better road infrastructure. Instead of people sitting in bumper to bumper traffic they can flow freely. But try getting the powers to be to build better roads and not plow it into mass transit.

Of course the ultimate gas save is having people working from home. But I see neither candidate talking about this in their policy speeches.

Mass transit is the way to go. Internal combustion gas engine powered cars only get a max of 25% efficiency. In many areas of the country there just aren't enough room for new roads, and roads have their capacity too. It's a horribly inefficient to build 8 lane highways (like Houston) JUST to accomodate peak time traffic, while the infrastructure itself is deteriorating even when it isn't being used. Then you have the right of way acquisition which costs a lot of money (maybe not, now that property values have plummeted in so many areas. There is only so much you can improve on for traffic efficiency. Maybe another 10% if they automate everything from speed limit to flow control, but that's still a lot of congestion.

Once an area has a decent mass transit system in place, force people to take it by raising gas taxes to subsidize mass transportation. Link car registration to displacement of the engine.

Kill off short haul air traffic and only allow medium-long haul to use the air space (general avation is another story).


All of this has been tried across major metropolitan areas and failed. Mass transit even in the best cities as reduced congestion by single % points at best while consuming large amounts of the transportation budget. The amount of money plowed into it could be better served expanding the road infrastructure.

Forcing people to do something is nothing more than oppression.


Can you provide specific metro areas where this is the case?

Public transport is not cheap, but i think its an overall plus to the economy. I think Boston is a good example of how many people can have jobs right in the city, without having to pay 40-80 dollars a DAY for parking.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87


All of this has been tried across major metropolitan areas and failed. Mass transit even in the best cities as reduced congestion by single % points at best while consuming large amounts of the transportation budget. The amount of money plowed into it could be better served expanding the road infrastructure.

Forcing people to do something is nothing more than oppression.

I would say that is a function of the gas prices. Areas where mass transit is avaliable/viable is experiencing a ridership boom. Like I said before, expanding road infrastructure in many cities is not as easy as you think (I got my BS in civil, working on my MS).

I don't see "forcing" people to take mass transit (where it is viable) is "oppression". People take/took cheap gas for granted, on a commodity that is bound to run out one day. Maybe a better way to explain it would be to "encourage" people to take mass transit, carpool, etc.

One of my friends studying petroleum engineering said that we won't run out of oil for at least another 100 years. What happens after that? It's always good to plan ahead and increase efficiency.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
I'm on the fence on drilling here. If it can be done without resulting in significant environmental impact I don't see a problem. We're not going to see any impact anytime soon but we're not going to get off oil anytime soon either.

Drilling off-shore is extremely safe now. More oil enters American waters from natural seepage from the ocean floor than from oil platforms. Which is amazing when you consider the battering from Hurricanes and other weather systems that the rigs in the Gulf endure.

150-170 barrels worth of oil seeps from one area off the coast of California alone per day. And it wouldn't take 10 years to drill off the coast of California either. More like a year or two.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
And if Obama and the left think tire pressure should be a center piece of energy policy by our govt. Then it explains why they continue to look so damned clueless on this issue in the eyes of the American people.

Right here is where the disconnect is and why the GOP/right/conservatives come off looking like idiots on this so-called "issue." Tire pressure has NEVER been the centerpiece of Obama's energy policy, EVER. He was asked what the average person could do to help conserve gas, and what do you know, Obama offered up a tip that happens to save 3-4%.

Christ, it's like the GOP campaign is run by a bunch of 5th-graders and it's fucking hilarious how many like-minded voters eat this crap up.
 
Back
Top