Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6947 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 6:35 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 5:31 am) Yes if that is any indication it costs about $1 billion/mile to run tunnels or bridges in an urban area. If you keep the HST train ending in the suburbs that would be cheaper construction costs. Maybe $25million/mile? But then you're not connecting to the subways. But the other thing is that Congress would never agree to select just 2 cities in 1 state. The argument would be why not connect Houston and Dallas, or Chicago and NYC ... Every state's congressmen would want a piece of the action - some other form of spending in their state, for voting for a bill like that. And again a HST only moves thousands of people a day to 2 specific points. This is a miniscule, miniscule can I say it enough - solution to transport in this country. We need to move several hundred million people to many million different locations each day! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 5:31 am) That would be a 33 1/3 % increase in my math. >So would we buy from another country and further erode our balance of trade? But it would look like politicians are actually _doing_ something if they can get it through. And that's so much more glamorous to the green crowd than fixing education lack of funding or fixing the no school-up-to-par act or fixing the waste of money in almost every governmental layer from Washington down to the local city. I'm becoming convinced that all the furor over global disaster due to warming to to distract voters from analyzing what the politicans are actually planning to do in the run for P\president or analyzing what congress is not doing to reduce our trillions of debt (in the teens?) now that we are thoroughly bankrupt. Let's worry about global warming, a nonproven item that it's not PC to question, and we can throw all sorts of money at it to benefit certain politicians. I note the green party has McKinney running for president. "Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?" No.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 5:31 am) mmm, I would first say that waiting one more year was not a good choice. Projects tend to get more expensive in time and delays are one big source of cost increases. I am not familiar enough to say. I guess the US legal environment is challenging in that any groundbreaking project is going to meet resistance in the form of expensive lawsuits. We need to consider land value. it may increase quite a lot in a short time, depending on market conditions Then the USD has lost quite some value. As a first project would initially incorporate more European technology, I speculate that there is an influence as well. >WHY SHOULD I VOTE TO INCREASE MY TAXES? 2000 billions USD were thrown in Iraq so far, right ? Let us not talk about petty amounts. > About all big cities seem capable of doing are sports stadiums. You are too clever to draw any comparison/parallel between money spent for entertainment and amounts invested in infrastructure. > Where is the heavy traffic we are going to relieve? Are you telling me current traffic in california is a breeze ? I did not remember it being so. Let us imagine it is anyway. The HST will simply relieve air and car traffic from the corresponding routes. Let us say current passenger flow between LA and SF is 60% car 40% plane. It is likely to become 30% car 20% plane 50% HST If you drive from LA to SF, wouldn't you be happy to meet 50% fewer cars doing the same trip as you? This is that fewer accidents on the road. >We could open the speed limit on those sections of the Interstate to autobahn speeds I would support this initiative, but even at high German speeds on the highway, it is very unlikely to beat any modern HST. I am sure we would see sometimes people in a Veyron or whatever super car try to beat it. Adding 3 or 4 USD in infrastructure tax per gallon would certainly have people behave. >With HST you still have to get around once you are there. This is no different than when you get off the plane. As mentioned earlier, a network of light rail should cope for a measurable % of the local transport needs, but it is not about banning the car in california. >So where would the extra money come from for HST? As suggested, more tax on gas, fewer military spendings, tighter control budget and a legal environment less defavorable to railways. >We do not build any HSTrains in the USA. So would we buy from another country and further erode our balance of trade? Not sure how you consider Canada, but Bombardier is a pretty prominent train manufacturer and has HST up their sleeve. Directly replying to your question, most large projects of this kind have technology transfer agreements. For many Alstom projects (Korean TGV, Spanish AVE) the lead units were made in France but the bulk were locally made. I trust any US project would be the same, with a subsidiary of the manufacturer being established in the US and local work done there. It is not like currently buying a Prius. >We are plane & car people and the transition to train travel may not make it here. I see the dependance upon oil burning technology a major threat to the US. -an economical threat because it will draw more and more money out of US -a political threat as US is likely to wage other wars to secure its oil supply, with all the good image that comes along. -an environmental threat ... Oh, I forgot global warming is not a big issue and if it was, it can't be man-made can it. If the US don't start any soft transition now (giving people choice with incentives for the clean solutions) Reality may strike very hard and later transition may prove brutal.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 14, 2008 6:58 am) Our pinhead governor just made his bid to be Obama's energy czar. I am just so glad that he cannot be President. He will bankrupt CA with his lack of gray matter before this term is up. He came in with some good ideas and when they did not fly through our TOTALLY corrupt legislature he decided to become one of them. I do not believe I have ever seen a worse transition in a politician. He is not what he seems in the movies. NO strength of character at all. He has no idea how he will cut GHG back to 1990 levels. It is just a buzz word he picked up from his flaky friends in Hollywood. They will spend billions trying to buy their way out of global warming. No other country has done it. Does he think he can just shut us down? 
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 7:31 am) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 5:31 am) Denver voters passed a $4.7 billion light rail expansion project back in '04 - they voted to raise their taxes to fund it. Light rail stokes development and jobs (the cluster effect). As far as building with local tech, a Boise outfit builds and refurbishes locomotives and cars, so you don't have to go to France. Although the French built rubber tired subway cars in Mexico City are terrific - or would be if they weren't so packed.
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 7:25 am) That is always the argument used to justify additional spending. That money is spent. Or should I say tacked onto the National debt. We should be looking for ways to spend less money not more. We should be paying down that debt not adding to it. As far as taxing gas like they do in the EU. That will not fly. We are near revolt over the current gas prices. Those kind of jolts to a society have to come slowly. If gas doubled over 5 years it would be accepted much better than one year doubling. We have politicians trying to save their jobs by cutting the measly 18 cents a gallon we now pay in Federal highway tax. Why do people think that we should tax automobile drivers to finance mass transit? why not tack an additional tax on air travel. Why not limit CO2 from air travel over land? Last I read a cross country flight dumps as much CO2 per passenger seat as a small car in one year (about 5 tons). Each person is allowed 10 tons per year PERIOD. No buying carbon credits for the rich. We all get to dump the same amount of GHG. Do you think all the twinkies in Hollywood would back up AHNOLD if that is what he proposed? I see the dependance upon oil burning technology a major threat to the US. That could be for the whole World. I am thinking we will all have electric cars soon. Then What do we need mass transit for?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 8:18 am) Highways Don't Pay for Themselves (Streetsblog)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vchiu (Jul 14, 2008 7:25 am) No matter when a project is started it will go grossly overbudget. So one year means nicht. >I forgot global warming is not a big issue and if it was, it can't be man-made can it. Now you're seeing the light. The homeostases involved are far beyond a Hollywood actor's or tired old corrupt senator/presidential candidate loser's having figured out the balances and how one item can upset them. Don't forget water vapor as GHG more effective than CO2.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 8:00 am) I think the CA HST plan will be long on promises and short of cash. If it is all built in the USA it would be good for our economy. If all we get to do is lay track that kind of sounds like the original railroads. Who would we get to do that work? Any volunteers?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
