the world has to stop driving cars

countries have to come up with plans to decrease car driving.

one day a week?

something!

the earth can't stand waiting for humans to invent alternative fuels. the earth will die while waiting and us along with it.

the world has to stop driving cars, now!

are we humans so stupid that we will drive ourselves over the cliff?

...and we need to create walkable neighborhoods.

My suggestion is that a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline would force both of those things to happen.

I work in a chemical weapons disposal plant. Not a place where a city is going to spring up.

Believe it or not, and I know it's hard for the urban elitists to understand this, not everyone can take a bus or a train or walk/bike to work. I would love to live nearby, but guess what? Nothing's for sale. I can't afford to build a place. Is that somehow my fault that I need to be punished now?

Furthermore, how about all those poor minorities who can't afford to live in the rich suburbs they do menial jobs in? Going to punish them too?

everytime I see one of this "something radical has to be done!" threads. Think it through for god's sake. Even if something DOES need to be done, how in the hell will it work? I'd love to see cities, for one, free of cars, but it's just not feasible right now.

that if we took two years of the military's (including all those black ops) funding, the entire nation could have some degree of mass transit.

but nah. don't want to make ourselves an easy target for takeover by some third world country that is still living in the 18th century. we gots to have dem weapons.

plus, the "i want to do everything my way" crowd would never agree to that. let us choke of the fumes while destroying the planet.

who cares. (that is not a question, but a statement.)

:shrug:

n/t

His or hers?
People tend to change jobs every few years, sometimes voluntarily, but increasingly due to layoffs, plant closings, etc.
With at least 2 workers per household in most cases, the chances that both can live within walking distance
of work for any period of time are extremely small.

Even if one does not change jobs, employers move workplaces often.
My office has moved 4 times in 11 years with the same employer.
Fortunately, I don't have to go to the office every day.
Telecommuting is a good thing.

If people up and move every other year to get closer to work, how does one build a community?

One must be very wary of radical solutions that don't take the whole picture into consideration.

First, if only one person can commute by walking, biking, or taking public transit that's one less car in the commute pack. That's better than two.

Second, when employers need to pay attention to where workers live they are far less likely to pick locations far from population centers and off public transit routes. Employers move now at the drop of a hat because the workers will follow them. If workers weren't able to follow them, site selection might be more sensitive to accessibility without cars.

Third, there's telecommuting. Not many jobs are conducive to it, but for those that are, every worker staying at home is another car off the road that day. Some companies have figured out that they can save money on space and equipment by having workers telecommute on a regular basis without a fixed desk in the office. If a company can reduce the need for office space by 10% that translates into real savings.

Building community is a whole 'nother topic.

Unless you want to return to the days of neighborhoods covered in soot by the local factory, they can't move.

With today's pollution controls that is. There will always be jobs that aren't conducive to placement in population centers. One of the ways to address worker transport is vanpooling or company bus from where the workers live to where the jobs are. Factories that work on traditional shifts are the most likely to benefit from this sort of mass transit. There have been demonstration projects to test out just such an approach. One from the mid 1990s, partially sponsored by HUD,was specifically an anti-poverty program aimed at matching low income workers in cities with jobs in the suburbs and outlying areas where employers were clamoring for workers. In one site I recall that all it took to make a good match was for the county bus service to extend two runs for an additional hour, thereby having service for the second shift. In another city where running traditional buses to the suburb job corridor wasn't practical, a vanpooling system was set up with two or three pick up locations in the city taking workers out to the factory.

We have evolved into a car-centric culture over a long period and evolving away from it will take time too. It would happen much easier and with less inconvenience if we made a commitment to do so rather than continuing to pretend that single occupant cars are the best way to organize our lives. Traffic jams are a way of life even in many less populated areas these day. We just can't build roads fast enough to sustain the commuting patterns we have now, and in many cases we can't build roads at all without displacing many residents and businesses.


On edit: and yes, commitment means it will cost money and that money will probably come in the form of taxes but with any luck we will tax in the least regressive way.

And sometimes they can carpool with each other if they are travelling the same direction.





Telecommuting and other home-working should probably be first on the list. It is a win/win.
Who wouldn't "sacrifice" their commute?



But it is very much related to the commute/job location issue.

small part of that discussion, although the limitless mobility afforded by cars has probably contributed to the decline of community more than anything else in the last century.

Telecommuting and home work are nice (have done it, worked fine for me and my employer) but still of limited functionality in the broader labor market. I agree that when it can be done that's the first approach that I would recommend. We can't have retail stores or restaurants with all the staff working from home. There may be opportunities to have some staff do work from home, but not as many as in the bulk of office jobs out there.

Ultimately we're going to need to put the brakes to our current system and turn it upside down. Perhaps the solution is for Segway-sized enclosed vehicles for commuting. That would free up considerable road space and give everyone the same level of autonomy they enjoy now in their cars. Who knows? I just hope that we are turning the corner on car-centric planning because it's just not sustainable.

1. If you don't drive so much (or not at all), you can afford to live in a more expensive place. After not driving at all for ten years, I own a car once again (relatives live in the burbs), and even though I drive it on the average of twice a week, it is really cutting into my budget, between insurance, repairs, and gas. That's a paid-for car that I "inherited" from relatives. If I had payments and drove ten miles to work every day, I could maybe afford to live in a tent. It's a vicious circle. People buy cars to go to work, and then because the car is so expensive, they can't afford to live close to where they work.

2. Some employers are flexible. One bank in Portland came up with the idea of encouraging employees to transfer to the branch closest to their homes.

3. We could have public transit and intercity rail everywhere if our military didn't keep invading and occupying other countries. You can build a pretty decent 10-mile light rail line for about $500 million. I wonder how many hours it takes for the Pentagon to spend $500 million in Iraq.

4. Americans can vote with their moving vans and refuse to live in places that don't have pedestrian or bicycle or transit links to stores, jobs, and services.

5. Americans need to tune out the relentless advertising that makes them think of cars as expressions of their personality. It's --I'll come right out and say it--STUPID to "love" an inanimate object that can't love you back when the health of the planet is at stake.

It would be wonderful if vehicles could be cut back, but to do so would require a huge social and infrastructure reorganization. By the time such a plan could be put together and agreed upon, it would probably be way too late.

It's a thought.

It used to be trains and horses.

People even moved from town to town by loading up their stuff in a horse-drawn wagon, taking it to the train station, renting a boxcar, and paying to have the railroad take it to their new town. Then they pick it up in their horse cart at the station. (My grandmother, born in 1899, told me that her family did this when they moved for a few years from Minneapolis to a small town in Wisconsin.)

not served by sewer systems. Only one vehicle per household.

Since they filter waste through the soil, naturally, restoring nutrients, using less water, not requiring a large, smelly plant that uses a lot of treatment chemicals, etc.

Where is your food going to come from?

when the economy has collapsed, which would be the immediate result of a $10/gallon gas tax.

My mother beleives that the current warming trend has nothing to do with human activity. "It's just a cyclical thing & has nothing to do with people driving SUVs." How do you change thinking like that? What does it take to make someone like that see the truth?

In the early 90s I watched a PBS special about global warming & the scientists interviewed during the program all said we had 30 years to make drastic changes -- one said she felt it was closer to 20. That was 10 years ago & we haven't done squat.

...if given the choice. The only way to stop the destruction of the environment is to simply take away the destructive choices.

You can't take a complex problem and say "we can fix this by passing a new set of laws and forcing people to do what we think is right." That's a Neocon position, and extremely short-sighted.

He predicted PRECISELY this problem 40 years ago, so one way to look at this is that we've had at least 40 years to discuss, educate, and avert global warming and other aspects of environmental destruction, yet we've failed utterly. He also said the appeals to conscience will never work, and that cheaters will ALWAYS undermine the efforts of the altruistic. That has proven true-- it's human nature.

We mostly agree that coercive laws are necessary to prevent people from doing some truly heinous things, like murdering one another, because it's in society's collective interest to take away some individual freedoms. As the Earth becomes more crowded and resources more scarce, a similar approach WILL BE NECESSARY to prevent environmental catastrophe. Or, if you'd prefer, we can simply poison our environment and let nature sort us out.

you can make this happen, even if you pass laws, without increasing human suffering exponentially?

I'd really like to hear the plan.

If I did, I'd be screaming it from the rooftops. Well, I suppose we do have the beginnings of a plan, and I tell it to my students at every opportunity-- DON'T REPRODUCE. There are multiple sides to the resource consumption and waste generation issue: two of the most important are per capita resource use and global human population size, and both can be improved by decreasing the rate of human reproduction. We NEED negative population growth, and although some countries have approached ZPG or even slightly NPG, the global trend is STILL exponential human population increase. Unfortunately, other issues have to do with culture and quality of life expectations, and asking people in developed countries to voluntarily reduce their lifestyle expectations and people in undeveloped countries to stop trying to achieve parity with developed country lifestyles has not been very fruitful.

However, we CANNOT continue to abuse the biosphere at the current rate. I say this both as a citizen of the Earth and as a professional ecologist. While we debate the "alternatives" the biosphere is increasing being burdened with wastes that lack simple disposal routes, suffering damage to its cycles of regeneration, and simply supporting too many humans. This cannot go on much longer without causing irreversible damage.

are a bit contradictory. If you want to decrease the population, look how many people are killed in the US alone by automobiles a year--about 45,000.

Seriously though, by eliminating non-commercial vehicles, look how many lives we could save. We scream about all of the senseless deaths in Iraq when there are 45 times as many senseless deaths on our highways every year!!

I prefer to stop all senseless deaths.

"to take away some" individual freedoms. How is this different from the fascist tendancies we all worry about with the RW?

...so much as simply pointing out that most people will not VOLUNTARILY give up the energy and resource intensive lifestyle that is the root of the problem. This is one of the central issues of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, BTW-- is there any fundamental difference between compelling people to give up the freedom to rob banks, or kill one another, and compelling them to relinquish the freedom to poison the biosphere or consume resources at unsustainable rates?

and I don't have a good answer.

It's not as if people like spending hours driving in traffic.

Ultimately, most people ALREADY have "better choices," they simply don't choose them. There are always justifications, but the truth is that alternatives exist for most of us-- they're just not comfortable, or convenient, or economically viable (a notion that puts personal lifestyles before environmental responsibility).

Want to do something really good for the environment? Don't reproduce, and reduce your energy consumption to nineteenth century levels. You will need to live like an Indian fakir to achieve that in America, but it is still one of your choices. We can't have our cake and eat it too-- we must begin to choose alternatives that lower resource consumption and waste generation. Making a SOCIAL committment to doing so would allow us to make fewer individual sacrifices, but make no mistake-- there is no way to achieve this without sacrificing something.

You really are out of touch aren't you?

My God, I hear the same arguments from conservatives - "Hey, if you don't like your job, find a new one." You really think it's that easy? Try it sometime. It took me four months to find a new job away from Chicago, a job I only took in the first place because it's the only one I could even get an interview with after half a year of searching.

So what are the alternatives, smart guy? Buy a plot of land and live off of it? I'm sure that's a viable option for the vast majority of us. I mean, we all have that kind of money lying around, that we could just snatch up some prime farmland, and magically live without any income.

Or better yet, find those magical jobs which apparently only you know about it that exist in major cities that pay $80,000+ so you can afford to actually live nearby.

Furthermore, I find it the height of hypocrisy that you are talking about "reducing your energy use to nineteenth century levels," yet find no problem using a computer and monitor that suck down more energy than three 19th century households. When are you going to be giving up your computer and showing us the way?

I didn't say anyone would like the alternatives, and I DID say that if you want to fix the problem, be prepared to give up your lifestyle. It's that simple, whether you like it or not. And yep, I'm conversing with you using my computer and a bunch of bandwidth, under a roof, while my laundry is being cleaned by a machine, and so on. I'm as much part of the problem as you are. On the other hand, I work within biking distance of my house, use public transportation more often than driving my ten year old car, and most importantly, I had myself sterilized.

I'm not being glib. I'm being realistic. We cannot talk about ceasing to damage the Earth's environment out of one side of our mouths while combining the most energy intensive lifestyle in history with the highest human population in history. If you have any other suggestions, make them.

and yes, you are being glib. You seem to think that getting a paycheck to pay the bills is something that can be changed at the drop of a hat, and it can't. It is simply not possible for many people, especially the poor, to live anywhere near where they work because of housing costs. and if you can't find public transportation, then what? What do you suggest they do? Do you even care about the effects this will have on people?

And don't give me this "well, it will be hard" nonsense either. They say same thing about free trade. It's a bullshit, copout argument and you damn well know it. The kind of changes you want would require a totalitarian government the likes of which we haven't seen. You would have to dictate where people leave, where they can work, what they can do, everything. What the hell is the point of living when someone else is telling you when to shit and when to go to bed at night?

The solution is to move to renewable sources of energy, to require sustainable development, to put in place water and soil conservation laws, and so forth. Not fascism.

...and with increasing energy use and population, we get further from them every day. Humans currently consume fossil fuels representing the biomass equivalent of something like 44 x 10¹⁸ g C annually, or over 400 times the total primary productivity of the Earth. There is no way to replace that consumption with biomass derived energy. Not on this planet. It's an historical and evolutionary accident that it exists at all (a long, high productivity period in the Earth's biological history combined with low efficiency decomposers).

Other sources of renewable energy include direct solar conversion to some storage form, tapping the kinetic energy of the Earth (tidal, wind, etc), and geothermal energy. None of those is available at EROEI levels even coming close to 10¹⁸ g C yearly, and nevermind the potential effects of harvesting it on the global heat engine. Instead, we're starting to fight wars over access to fossil hydrocarbons. I'm leaving out nuclear fission because it is just as limited as fossil fuels, i.e. the Earth's supply of accessible fissile materials is quite limited, notwithstanding the mind-numbingly complex environmental issues associated with using the stuff.

Sustainable development? What's that? Limiting the extent of land conversion? Limiting how much space individuals (or their wastes) can occupy? Limiting how far people can travel for employment? Exactly what sort of sustainable development will put a significant dent in that biomass debt we're borrowing against? That is essentially what I meant by reduction to nineteenth century resource consumption levels-- that's the only level of "sustainable development" that will make much difference, and even that will only make a difference in the long run if it's coupled with a dramatic reduction in human population.

on edit-- BTW, do you give a damn that the lifestyle we already enjoy affects the majority of the world's population in just the way you lament that being forced by circumstances to make those hard choices will affect people's lives here?

You suggest that "sustainable development" is part of the solution. I agree with you, but I suspect we have different ideas about what sustainable development means.

First, the U.S. has what, about 6 percent of the world's population, and accounts for somewhere in the vicinity of 25 percent of global resource consumption? Any whack at "sustainable development" has to start with limiting consumption to a MAXIMUM of the fraction available globally on a per capita basis. That's the breakeven point, before you actually begin to make a positive contribution. That means that EVEN WITHOUT REDUCING GLOBAL RESOURCE CONSUMPTION RATE, sustainable consumption in the U.S. has to begin with a reduction to just under 25 percent of current levels in order to bring consumption levels down in the U.S. to that 6 percent per capita of global rate. Stated another way, 75 percent less of everything.

And that's just to balance the books at the current level of resource consumption, which is itself FAR higher than sustainable. How much do you think global resource consumption has to be decreased to be "sustainable," given that sustainable means resource use at less than or equal to resource supply rate? Certainly by more than 50 percent, but let's use that as a point of departure. Reducing global resource consumption (including energy consumption) by 50 percent, combined with the 75 percent reduction in per capita consumption required in the U.S. alone for global per capita resource parity means that we actually need to reduce U.S. per capita consumption to one half of 6 percent of current global per capita consumption, or 3 percent currently. That's about 88 percent less than present U.S. consumption. Eighty-eight percent less energy use, 88 percent lower calorie consumption (or substitutions from other sources of consumption-- a decision that folks in other parts of the world make routinely in order to not starve)-- I think you see the point. Sustainable development? Whose sustainable development, and for whose lifestyle?

If the only available choices are a life of profligate consumption or begging on the street,
what do you think people are going to choose? What would you choose?

That is why I said we need better options.

There is no reason we cannot have better options if we get to actually spend our tax money on real stuff
instead of having it all stolen by robber barons and fundies.

POLAND has a better rail system than we do!

take away life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness........


This thread is pointless, if we win majoritys in 06/08, the easit way to lose them would be to take away people's cars

You START by building attractive alternatives (transit, etc.) and taking away the existing incentives to use cars, such as free parking.

When I lived in Arcata, I didn't own a car. I lived near school and the grocery store, and if I really needed to go to Eureka I got a ride with friends.

When I moved to Oakhurst, suddenly I NEEDED a car. My house was 4 miles (and about 1500 feet elevation gain) from my work, and the store was a mile further than that. The laundrymat was in between home and work. And there was NO public transportation whatsoever, and riding a bike along the busy and dangerous highway was not feasible.

It's a commute that took 10 minutes in the car, but would have been impossible without a car. It's also a commute that's probably a lot shorter and faster than the commutes of most people in the US.

There's really no solution in that situation. Running busses up and down rural roads would probably create as much or more pollution than cars in areas of very low population density. Electrical cars are seen as a panacea, but you and I both know that "green" electricity is almost a myth.

There are no easy solutions here. :shrug:

Trains are the most efficient way to transport people. We need more of them. Lots more.

If you build it, people will come.

They're not THAT fond of driving in heavy traffic, and nobody likes paying high gas prices.

Just forbidding people from driving won't fly when there are no alternatives.

It's not just the people driving cars you have to worry about. If it were, you could simply revitalize mass transit in the cities and ban other motor vehicles from cities altogether. It's feasible, I believe, though difficult.

One of the problems, as I learned on a job I decided not to keep after about a week and a half, is that a lot of companies involved in the transportation of goods have absolutely no respect for the issue before us. This company had delivery and pick-up routes throughout the city and the suburbs which they performed every day, sometimes twice, and sometimes even three times, because customers insisted that they needed parts picked-up and dropped off IMMEDIATELY. Their whole scheduling system was unnecessarily wasteful.

Then you have jobs and industries which require regular travel. Any sort of construction job does. A worker's job site might be tens of miles from his or her home, and may change weekly, if not more often. Mass transit doesn't solve this problem, because it often involves the transport of tools and materials as well as people.

I understand the concern, but this is one of the proposed radical changes that has too many facets to be as cut and dried as people seem to think it is, or should be.

Gaia will be just fine without us riding around on her.

It's not the Earth that's in trouble. It's US.

extreme weather.

with the cost in the billions, trillions?

how long can you live with softball size hail?

200 tornados in one day?

rising oceans?

bad, bad air to breathe?

americans are such dolts we couldn't give up driving one day a week? to save our lives?

surely there are enough sane humans in the world to act out and do something! surely....

systems and, where possible, public transportation systems.

We aren't going to stop driving cars, but we can drive better, more efficient, more eco-friendly cars.

Start manufacturing hybrid diesels, with an extra battery pack. Fuel them with biodiesel. Plug them in at night for a recharge, using wind generated electricity. This is all feasible and possible right now, with off the shelf tech.

nt

so we can all be perfect Gaia warriors like you.

nt

We'd have that and more.

And the roads would be virtually deserted for car enthusiasts like myself to enjoy the newly passed 100mph speed limits. :)

It would be win/win, frankly.

Gasoline? $50.00 a gallon.
Diesel? $2.50.
Tires? $3,000 per set.
(Semi Trucks Tires $500 a piece like now.)

Guess what? We'll find a way to make tires out of recycled trash, and motors that get 500 mpg. Or alternative transportation.

I love how so-called "liberals" have no problem with fascism and regressive taxes when it's THEIR cause they're advocating.

If , as the OP implies, we need to stop driving cars, the answer is to make fuel and parts costs repressively high.

The poor ALREADY suffer right NOW. The only ones unaware of this are the neocons , whose penchant is to blame the victims for their plight, be it poverty sickness, or unemployment.

A city that is built for cars is hell for the poor, because they either have to scrape together enough money to buy and run one, when they hardly have enough money for food and shelter, or they have to be dependent on rides from friends, taxis, or crappy bus systems.

Build the alternatives first. THEN tax the hell out of gas guzzlers. (It isn't the poor who have the real gas guzzlers.)

Then the company moved 36 miles north of my house. The spouse still takes the train, I drive a Prius.

Its the best we could come up with... and I spend quite a bit in the car....

and that should be one of the first issues to tackle.
The other, of course, being the provision of alternatives so that fewer people need to drive.

Then we need some disincentives for unnecessary driving other than just the cost of fuel. I don't want to see society go back to the old days in which the rich were set above the rest by their fine carriages that spray mud on us as they roar past.

And on a different subject,it saddens me that so many of the beautiful people I've come across are not raising little ones to follow in their footsteps. I wouldn't criticize anyone for such a personal decision, but I can't help feeling it's those who would be the best parents who are not having children these days.

But at least mike, in his teaching, can influence the development of some of the next generation. :toast:

A healthy adult should be able to walk a mile in twenty minutes.

is this, soon enough, probably in a decade, regardless of wear you live or how far work is to you house, gasoline and oil prices generally will end up being MORE expensive than what you could possibly earn that day at work. In other words, driving cars for personal transportation will no longer be economical for the individual. Even with carpooling, if possible, or other possibilities, and the problem, in the States at least, is the lack of options. Many people travel 60+ miles or more to get to work, and there are no buslines or trains that lead ANYWEAR close to where they need to go. This is a disaster waiting to happen. What we need is a radical reconstruction of our infrastructure, and an expansion of public transportation and other alternative modes of transport, our primary form of transportation is simply no longer sustainable.

They build highways, but they also build train lines out to new suburbs.

One of my friends in Japan used to live in a housing development on the very outskirts of Tokyo. It was mostly condos, but it had some detached houses that looked almost American, as well as a McDonald's and a 7-11. However, it also had a commuter train station, with trains connecting to the main line into Tokyo every twenty minutes and a bus from the train station weaving through the residential area.

is yet to come.

a massive infrastructure project as big as the federal highway system...a mag-lev train system, with terminals all over america, in cities big and small. Basically if you have a highway entrance/exit ramp at your town, you also have a place to get on the train. Not only could I take it to work, I could go down the street, get on, and ride to the next city...or the next state, or California for that matter. Might even like it better than flying. Lets see, I wouldn't need a car for much, and probably wouldn't fly too much. Sounds good to me.

Silver Shadow would be a good name for a train, BTW.

I guess SilverShadow would be a great name for a train.

not only would it be a great transportation system that solved a lot of problems for the long term, just think of how it would help the economy- for many years with jobs during construcion, jobs afterwards. And I am sure it would have a big impact in the general economy after it was in place.

All those underemployed blue collar workers could have living wage jobs building train tracks and bicycle paths and then running and maintaining the trains afterwards.

The car is not the problem.....the fact that it burns gas is the problem.

Why do more people seem to focus on increasing mass transit rather than creating zero-emissions cars? Is there something inherently wrong with people having fast, independent methods of transportation no matter how clean that method is? I can understand implementing measure to cut down on driving until we make the switchover, but ultimately the pressure needs to be put on the car industry. An industry that's dragging their feet when it comes to creating these vehicles because of the almighty dollar.

Eh...not to be doctor doom, but all our ideas are just that ideas. We know that the world won't do anything about it unless something really radical happens. Even if we did make massive changes in the near future, I can't help put wonder if it's too late. The damage to the environment might already be pushed past the recovery point. Not saying we shouldn't make the effort anyway of course...

1) reducing carbon emissions

2) reducing the social alienation that comes from living in anonymous, soulless suburbs, where, as Tom Wolfe noted, the only way you can tell you're in a different town is that the fast food places start repeating. (It's no coincidence that these kinds of car-burbs are breeding grounds for Republicans.)

Besides, there are no zero-emission cars, except possibly nuclear powered. (Uh, I don't want nuclear powered cars racing down the freeway, do you?) :nuke:

Even hydrogen-powered cars (and hydrogen is even more expensive than gasoline) emit water vapor, and nobody seems to think about the fact that all that excess water vapor could have a horrible effect on the climate.

Wouldn't water vapor be better than oxides of sulphur and nitrogen and ozone ?????????

we might like more water vapor condensing as rain...

But you raise a good question. Anybody know what large amounts of water vapor would do?

What about the energy equation --to produce the hydrogen? That's the problem with ethanol as I understand it--ethanol burns more hydrocarbons to produce it than you gain at the pump.

--------------

re. Transportation--these ideas have been around for a long time. Why don't we finally do it?

1. Mass Transit (put a tax on gas to pay for major mass transit systems) including commuter trains within cities and fast trains between cities

2. Dedicated bicycle lanes like in Holland and China, in urban areas

3. A different approach to building...reversing decades of suburban sprawl

4. Decrease trucking

5. Tax SUVs that don't meet stringent MPG and pollution requirements on an annual basis

6. Wind energy and solar--reduces oil and gas dependence needed to produce hydrogen cars --also to run electric trains

I don't believe this problem can even be solved on the individual level, but only as a larger plan of city or neighborhood zoning. Fees, penalties, and hiked-up charges will help nothing, as none of this is under the control of the individual, as far as I can tell. City planning, and even the entire structure of the City itself, has been getting worse, and more unlivable, the more control corporations have gotten over the institutions of government and what used to be the public welfare.

I have been thinking a lot about this over the past couple of years, too--both because of occasional car problems and just wanting to walk more, and also as the larger issue of the sustainability of this modern life--and no matter how I try to do it, I can't keep it up as a regular practice. The City is not built for it; it doesn't even have the neighborhood as its center anymore. You can't easily ride your bike during the Summer because you are constantly running up against large intersections, unless you just want to ride eternally around going nowhere on the side streets, where there are no stores in neighborhoods anymore; one of the first corporate victories over the people. I remember reading the City Plan for my city in the library, I think 1985, and it had a part about how the plan was to eventually remove all single-standing small individual grocery stores, and have all commercial activity located together, as a shopping center business location, for each neighborhood area. The only obstruction to this "zoning purity" effort, though, was the opposition of citizens, and the unpopularity of total consolidation. This was in the actual City Plan. I could not believe the arrogance of their proceeding with plans they can't implement "only" because the people oppose it, but that they will continue anyway--until it all started happening over the years. There are almost no stores within walking distance, easy to get to, and not on major avenues away from neighborhoods, anymore. They started up a disastrous paid-parking plan that has killed businesses, because people cannot afford to keep paying and paying when these were places they only went in and out of to buy a few things, etc., so now there is no bookstore in my general area for the first time in my life. My vet (two dogs) is about 8 or 9 miles away from me, totally unworkable except by car. Stores you need to get to are nowhere near each other, so you can't combine trips most of the time--it saves no mileage--yet there are huge supermarkets right across the street from each other. There is supposed to be a regulated distance so they don't take customers away from each other; there is not.

Rather than using existing buildings, they chop down the last remaining areas of woods in the city or on the edge of town, and no matter how residents fight, the residents always lose. As mentioned, people typically drive 10-15 miles even for crappy minimum wage jobs now. Further, because of corporations and their exploitive lack of caring for society, their effects extend to the sense of time during the work day. There are no longer any "rush hours" followed by "lulls," then "drive time home," etc., as predictable traffic patterns during the day. Now, there is traffic, often heavy, all day, at odd hours, no break. There is no schedule anymore because of the corporate exploiter; now people just go from full-time job to part-time job, home, then to the next part-time job. The life of the community itself has been killed by the unregulated, underpaying corporate exploiter. There are only huge, totally inconvenient (for us, not for them) malls with global corporate pimps setting up shop--all smaller, independant merchants systemmatically undercut out of business; and that was where the decent jobs were, gone. Now the only goal is to get people cut off from their own areas, and once trapped in the commercial zone/shopping area of sprawl, have them presumably go from store to store there, spending what they don't have.

The more the corporate pimp directs government policy, the more Amtrak, buses and other public transportation are killed, and no one can afford to take cabs over and over, so you have nothing. Many cities have a great service for older people, where for a minimal fee they can go to the doctor's office, grocery shopping, etc., in a van provided as a city service. It would help if some cities could expand programs like this, reducing individual vehicle-use. Many grocery items--milk, bread and other bakery items--used to be available as a home-delivery at an ordinary, non-price-gouged cost; but of course all these things that used to contribute to the convenience of citizens are the very things that corporations have cut, as they have gained abusive power over all of us. They don't even give their employees benefits anymore, let alone a decent return policy on items for customers. The more power they get, the more everything is turned to nothing.

Expanding technology does nothing to help: if people cannot afford to pay an extra couple hundred dollars on a fake, price-gouged gas bill, then they cannot buy thousands of dollars worth of conversion equipment on a home remodelling. Attack the abusive corporation with laws--penalties, fines, prison sentences for once. Get at the problem, or it will never stop. The corporate lobby that controls everything now, has caused this, and made cities unlivable, and so expensive because you can't cut corners anymore and save money anywhere; there is only the corporate plan. Until neighborhoods are allowed to return to the kind of mixed zoning that used to allow a grocery store, etc., conveniently in your neighborhood surrounded by homes, then you can't do any of this anyway. They have to become, again, what I think neighborhoods of New York City still generally are, a self-contained area where really, actually, everything you need to do is within walking distance. This is one of the most crucial problems in the whole country, as the standard of living for most of the American people, sinks.