Yeah we do have this strange and misguided sense of entitlement to cheap gasoline here in the US. However, even the prices we pay now are artifically low. You're not seeing how much it's costing to defend the pipeline (both land and sea). That comes out of taxes. There is the ironic part. Through withholding and sales taxes the government can take more of your money each year and people barely notice. The same people show up at the pump and see the price jump 20 cents and they're up in arms.

However, I drive a wimpy Honda Civic. Maybe I'm just in smug mode. :smug:

Thats because of the way of life. America is still wide open. You have to have a car unless you live in a city. In europe you can get away without owning a vehicle. Public transportation is right there.
How do you mean we have a misguided sense of entitlement to cheap gasoline?

Basically here in America we tend to be strong believers in market forces and the immutable laws of supply and demand. We do have this odd blind spot when it comes to gasoline prices tho. They have to be keep low...even artificially low. I've never quite understood why.

I also drive a wimpy Civic, spending approximately $20 per week on gas. I do make sure to send a grin and wink to the SUV driver at the next pump who is passing the $70 mark.

This was once the way of life everywhere if you substitute horses for automobiles ;) To elaborate on what Torp said, I would also say its misguided because its irrational. Having hit Peak Oil in the 70s, the US ever since has had to import ever greater stocks of petroleum from a world supply that is itself dwindling, and from countries which are located in some of the most unstable parts of the world.

I would argue that a rational approach would be to develop instead alternative forms of energy and promote and increase the availability of mass transit to lessen dependence on something that we've known, for 30 years now, is not only difficult to secure (think OPEC), but also running out. But this has never been done as the band-aid fix has always been preferable. We'll have to see what happens when they run out of band-aids.

I agree. I'd even go so far to say that the very size of the country prohibits a national public transportation system that would eliminate the need for personal vehicles.

It's doable in the cities to some extent but it'd never reach out to every community.

This is true. The US is of a scale far too large for any type of public transportation to be effective in this country. The automobile also gives Americans a sense of freedom that is unavailable with other modes of transportation. With a car, you can go where you want, when you want, and to a certain extent at what speed you want.

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I drive a 1993 Toyota Corolla, which is the direct competitor to the Civic. It's not the $20/week in gasoline that bothers me so much (who am I kidding, of course it does!) as the fact that I remember a time only a few years ago that it used to run on $8 a week.

Whats worse is that salaries have not gone up to compensate. And its not just gas, it's housing costs and utilities and more.

And they won't. This is the essence of inflation which rising oil prices, being the backbone of a modern economy, is a great predictor of.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I don't think it's possible to eliminate personal vehicles altogether, nor do I think that's particularly desirable. But on the other hand, the existing highway network is totally congested. The sense of freedom that the automobile gives is there, yes, but it is also artificial. It's hard to feel that freedom when you're sitting at a dead stop on the interstate because traffic is backed up for five miles ahead (or more).

I'm guessing nobody wants to hear the whole thesis, but basically there's no centralized traffic control on American roads, and the smallest of delays (e.g., just tapping your brakes) creates a ripple effect that moves backwards and tends to get larger. 20 years ago, it took 45 minutes to an hour to drive from my hometown to the nearest large city on the interstate. Today, there are six lanes (in most places) instead of four, the speed limit is 10-15 mph higher, and it still takes at least an hour to make the same trip. There are more cars on the road, and there is exponentially more roadside development. More cars getting on and off = more alternating between acceleration and braking. Highways are more or less saturated.

I don't think a good public transportation system needs to touch every single community, because the boundaries of communities and regions have changed. Traffic congestion does not recognize county lines or city limits or geographic fall lines. In North Carolina, for instance, you have three major urban areas: the Charlotte area, the Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point area, and the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area. These are huge urban areas that basically function as economic and political entities even though they are spread over multiple counties and comprise multiple jurisdictions and are - officially - made up of numerous individual communities. Alternative forms of transportation (particularly rail) could be extremely effective just by serving those three major "centers" without even trying to reach each individual city or town within them - particularly if coordinated with local public transportation.

I'm not saying it's possible to do away with high gas prices or to solve traffic problems overnight, but I do think the alternatives to being automobile-dependent are viable as *part* of the national transportation network.

This is all provided you work in a city and live along the spokes of the public transportation links. Urban centers and the communities that surround them already tend to have decent public transportation, at least up here in New England, although their schedules thin out unacceptably (imo) at night. What doesn't (mostly) exist are the town to town links and access to the rural areas away from the cities.

Speaking of rural areas in particular, most are already economically depressed and the high cost of fuel is going to really hurt those people to whom a pickup or SUV is more necessity than luxury a lot more than city dwellers. Unfortunately it just isn't economically feasable to provide public transportation to these areas beyond maybe the daily bus which country folk will still have to drive 20 or more miles to meet.

Obviously, some people NEVER tried the public transportation system in Italy.

Next time you comment about it, try "in Europe minus Italy...".

Europe has a village every 5km. That's why mass-transit works pretty well on the east and west coasts here in the US; there's a village about every 5km.

Obviously, some people don't know whether I've tried it or not. ;)