Car pooling or ride sharing is one thing. A reciprocation on errand running - like bringing back a bit of hardware or lumber for a neighbor in your van or pick-up - is another way of increasing the effectiveness of a given expenditure of fuel.

How does it work in your neighborhood now? What cost of gasoline do you think it would require to induce people to get into of this kind of mutual aid on a more regular basis?

Of course, I don't rule out increased use of commuter buses and other valuable options. I just think the one-driver and a fairly empty car (or one driver and a kid or two) kind of car travel will one day be less prevalent, even in the city & the 'burbs.

Joel

I agree... but gas prices will cause people to become aware, I think.

I also agree with you about walking and riding a bike. We do both of these out here quite a bit, when distances allow.

J.

Everyone is so intrigued and impressed by it, but when I talk to people and try and encourage them to do the same, they come up with so many excuses, the biggest one is "I dont have time". The crazy thing is, that it really doesn't take much longer but people have the perception that they're getting places quicker in a car but it's really just not true on short trips because it's all stopping and starting and traffic.

I think eventually petrol/gas will get so expensive that people will be forced to rethink their dependence on cars, but then again maybe another fuel source will be used and life will just continue on as always. I think it's a shame that more people arent getting out there and walking and riding around more, we seem to have forgotten how useful these simpler forms of transport really are, and it does give you a sense of independence, you realise that your world wouldnt fall apart if you didnt have the car to rely on for whatever reason.

Here in Fairfield County there is terrible rush-hour traffic, and sooo many of the cars have one person in them. Such a shame. But public transportation is not that good. Locally, in my town, it is practically non-existent. On a larger scale it is not convenient to take the train, because once you get to your destination, the trransportation there is not always great. If you work for a big corporation, some of them have shuttle buses, which is great, but if you don't work a 9-to-5 schedule, it can be tough.

My daughter went to a private school, and no busing was provided. I was given a car-pool list, but only one person on the list lived near me and she ended up not wanting to car-pool! And it kills me the number of high school students who drive to school instead of taking the bus.

Maybe these $4+ per gallon prices for gas will finally get something done on the public transit front. I read recently that train ridership is up in the area lately. Maybe something good will come out of it.

:)
Dee

Buses, commuter trains, and bicycles may begin to play larger roles. Buying a larger proportion of our food from local sources and processors may gradually take hold in society.

But individual-household cars will still be around. And even if new sources of energy gradually come on-stream for our vehicles, petroleum and its derivatives (such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home-heating oil) will be getting more pricey and will still be part of the way we add more or less carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere. Slowly, people will I'm sure wake up. And learn how to share.

Joel

I for one would love to see gas prices at $20 per gallon
maybe then we would reduce the use of cars.

GREEN ON A MISSION

Blueangel

LOL, that doesnt surprise me at all, and how rediculous is it?
It's like a bad habit that we've been lulled into and we dont even stop and question the logic of it. I do think high fuel prices are a good thing, it's probably the only thing that will make most people rethink and change their driving habits.

I think it's outstanding that you havent driven in 20 years. how did you do it? and what made you decide to go without a car?

But still I believe that people are only going superficially green until they begin to take matters like transportation, housing, and community planning into hand. Sure - recycle, re-use, make compost, dry clothes on a clothesline, use low-energy lighting... all good things. But we still make huge impacts on our atmosphere & our city streets by how we get around.

Joel

Blueangel

But transportation, housing, and community planning are also public issues -- not so easy for a person to start addressing.

Blueangel

I recently followed with interest NYC's attempt to make certain areas of the city accessible to automobile/truck traffic only after paying a fee. The idea was to reduce traffic in the city; people would not want to pay to drive, and therefore would take public transportation into those areas. Whether it was for convenience or environmental issues, I'm not sure, but certainly the environment would have been affected if there was a reduction in traffic. Sadly (to me at least) the effort was defeated.

I love the idea introduced in several European cities where the center of the city is closed off to automobile traffic. I wish cities here in America would adopt that.

I think the big problem with mass transit and public transportation, though, is not IN the cities, but in getting people TO the cities. In my area, most people have at least a 30-mile, one-way commute, if not more, and the public transportation is just not up to moving that many people that far.

We can't just say, "Oh, move closer" because there are several reasons why people live so far - mostly because they can't afford to live in the areas in which they work. It really will take a overhaul of the way our society has lived for the last 70 or so years (since the widespread introduction of the car) to change things.

trancegemini, there is a school bus stop down the street from me, and every day there are two cars parked at the corner with the kids. The road only has three houses on it, so they must drive their kids a whole 200 feet at the most to the bus stop. I can see in the rain or bad weather, but on a beautiful spring day, there they are, driving to the bus stop a couple hundred feet from their front door. Sheesh.

:)
Dee

Indeed [InDeed :-)], that's what I meant. For example, you can't take public transportation if there isn't any, or if it doesn't go where you need to go when you need to go there. You can't live closer if you can't afford to live closer. You can't live in walkable or bike-able neighborhoods if planning departments and zoning codes allow (or even require) developers to build unwalkable neighborhoods. But you can compost if you want to compost :-).

Anyhow, I do think there is a place for vehicles (like SUVs) that have the capacity to carry six or eight people at a time. It's just that so many households that don't really need such a car have acquired one.

But you'd figure: These big-SUV owners have to pay the rapidly escalating gas or diesel prices, just like the rest of us - aren't they feeling the pinch, and won't this smarten them up?

Gee... maybe they're so affluent that they don't actually feel the pinch, and therefore feel no incentive to economize. What do you think? Personally, I don't know any people like that.

J.

Well, the artickle at least relates that people are buying far fewer of them (though clearly still buying them). A step in the right direction, I'd think. Thanks, Alfie.

J.

as a town car they are way over the top, people might feel safer in them in case they have an accident, but what about that sedan or pedestrian you might run into one day, how are they going to fare? there was even a local incident where a small child was run over in a parking lot because the driver of the 4wd didnt see them over the top of the bonnet :/

:)
Dee

Actually, next week we are going to see whether we can fit three booster seats with backs in the back of our four-door Jetta. We can fit a baby car seat, a child car seat, and a backless booster seat -- just barely.

Due to their inherent capabilities for use in chellenging off-road situations, fuel-economy is sacrificed to power. But the joke for many years now has been how they are bought often as SYMBOLS, and in very many cases are rarely used by the owner for off-road conveyance. (After all, that might damage the paint job.) So they look impressive and offer a kind of fantasy, but - on an everyday-use basis - they guzzle a lot of fuel.

So when you have a single-passenger (the driver) getting about town in one of these, it's a symbol for the height of wastefulness.

By comparison, a mini-van can be an appropriate technology.

J.

:)
Dee

"Due to their inherent capabilities for use in chellenging off-road situations, fuel-economy is sacrificed to power. But the joke for many years now has been how they are bought often as SYMBOLS, and in very many cases are rarely used by the owner for off-road conveyance. (After all, that might damage the paint job.) So they look impressive and offer a kind of fantasy, but - on an everyday-use basis - they guzzle a lot of fuel."

we have a less specific terminology over here, we call the suv type vehicles 4wds, but we also call the more sturdy offroad vehicles (which are taken off road but more serious design and less flashy) 4wds. if a sedan or van has 4wd capabilities, we still call it a sedan or van. we just dont use the term suv and not all cars with 4wd capabilities are called 4wds, confused? :)

youre right, people buy the 4wds and wont take them off road because they might get scratched, and also tradespeople get them as a work vehicle, but wont put their tools etc in the back because it might mess it up, so they then hitch a trailer on back for their tools as well : /

Twenty years ago in the coffee room of my office there was a discussion about pollution and gasoline consumption, and someone made the comment about how we are gluts (in North America) about stuff, and how some of the things we buy or pay for are too cheap, and should be WAY more expensive. He used saran wrap as an example, it's so cheap that people use it alot, and once, and throw it out, yet it doesn't decompose well (or at all?), and costs $ and resources to make.

I walked away (young and naive) thinking he was one of those 'hippies' from the 60's, yet over time I found myself coming back to his comment and I've started to look at everything I use, and questioning whether I need to do things the way the tv commercials tell me to (and society).

I try to watch my gas consumption, grouping my errands to the same part of town on the given day. And waiting another week or two until I am back in that part of the city, instead of making a special drive for an item. But it's how to get other people to start to be aware of this. They get hit with 'global warming' speeches on the news, and it's so depressing and overwhelming that I think many just try to avoid thinking about it, placing hope and trust in researchers, or that all will turn out well.

I read in a People Magazine that last year Tom Cruise's fuel bill was $1,000,000. (Jetting his beloved over to Italy so she can pick out the perfect dress for one of his premieres - is that like my family driving 20K in to town to window shop?) Just because he's got the $, what gives him the right to use so much? I cannot remember, but in some eastern country, residents had gas card allowances, where it did not matter if you had the money to buy more, you could only purchase 30 litres of gas per week for personal use. Maybe that's what's needed here, a weekly limit, to try to make people aware of the gas they use, when they want to hop in the vehicle and drive in to town to 'shop' because they've nothing fun to do that day.

Or there needs to be some way to know what the actual cost of driving here and there is, like the meter on a taxi.

kioni

And some of the city buses that transverse the major hills of our larger town also have these bike racks.

How many of you are noticing this sort of thing, where you live?

I do know that the local trains are considering adding cars to hold bikes.

:)
Dee

Just a word of note. A friend of mine's mother in law was carpooling and her car was left sitting in the drive. When she did drive it, the "check engine" light was on. Rats had eaten some wiring, causing $1600 worth of damage. The mechanics said they used to see that a couple of times a month, now they see it a couple times a week as people are not driving as much.

I simply hope that more people, from the general run of North-American drivers, will find options that will work for them. Alley, do you think that the presence of so many oil wells (and maybe refineries) has contributed to a complascent blind eye toward gasoline consumption and prices in Texas?

About the rats getting into the wiring of dormant, parked cars: Seems to me that people could put rat traps, with some good bait food, under their vehicles when parked at home. If they don't want the neghborhood cats and small dogs to getting broken legs in old-style traps, they can use live traps and then drown the rats (trap into barrel or tub of water) after they're caught.