tvashtarkatena

Yeah, Honda abandoned any further development of that vehicle about 5 years ago, so it died in the market place. Guess you didn't get the memo. Fuckin' moron.

Hybrid sales: another record setting year. Vehicular greenhouse gas emissions account for 40% of the total in California (which is probably representative of the country as a whole). 40% of that, or 16% of total emissions, come from residential vehicles. Commercial vehicles are often the first to take advantage of carbon neutral or fuel efficiency technologies for cost reduction, however, so technical advances made in the residential sector also carry over to the industrial and public, and visa versa. Vehicle emissions in California You seem to be defending a do nothing approach (as you usually do) in the transportation sector because it doesn't constitute 100% of all emissions; a ridiculous stance on its face. Transportation is a significant contributor to global warming, to be sure, but arguing for long needed reductions in this sector does not imply ignoring other sectors. It is just a part of an overall all plan to reduce emissions in every major sector. Duh.

Sorry, doll. I've already got a boyfriend.

Piece out.

I believe I'm quite drunk on it, today.

Ten minutes ago you were a pontificating ass. Now you're a defensive pontificating ass.

I'm for much higher gas taxes to reduce traffic and associated traffic infrastructure costs as well as to pay for mass transit, bike lanes, and tax breaks on high mileage vehicles, particularly of the two wheeled variety (which further reduce traffic burdens, and don't have the manufacturing energy inputs required for Priuses and the like). Americans have not yet begun to seriously cut back on driving and thus CO2 emissions. We can also no longer afford to maintain our installed base of roadways, so building more doesn't make any sense. Since our survival (the climate) is at stake, it's time to hit the American public where it counts the most: our wallets. Call it the 'invisible back hand', if you will.

Even better. The result for society is the same. If some rich blowhards want to subsidize my high mileage vehicle, and the environment (and our foreign policy) benefit as a result, I'm all for it.

I believe your signature might be a wind scorpion, either 'Ammotrechula pilosa' or 'Eremochelis bilobatus'.

Yet another generalizing ass who doesn't have a clue as to what they're talking about weighs in.

There are only 2 pea brains on this forum who could have come up a CAFE = Prohibition analogy. Congratulations.

As usual, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Have you checked out the sales figures for Priuses lately?

According to the New Yorker, the Ford Model T got better than today's average of around 20 mpg for U.S. made vehicles. Think about that next time you hear an auto executive argue against more ambitious fleet mileage standards because they're "too technically difficult to achieve"

"Gimme some more o' that frog juice"

Prole, Prole...the invisible hand is taking care of this. Remember the conservative's mantra: Reaction, not prevention.

from Uranus

Does that constitute hitting a cow?

I could swing a 40.8 lb cat in a crowded room and not hit a Bush supporter, so I gotta ask: Who the HELL are the 31%?

At least they got the milk for free.

I you can dispense a can of Coke for 75 cents automatically and make a hefty profit, I would think you could dispense a ticket and at least break even. We all know what happens when such systems become free. The freeloading population quickly destroys it. Roads are different; you're not using the state's vehicles, and its really hard to vandalize a road. You have to charge something to ensure the system has enough capacity for those who actually need it.

Brit: Now there's one hole that hasn't been dry in a long, long time.

Every net loss per rider study I've come across conveniently omits both the cost of building and maintaining alternative transportation infrastructure as well as the productivity cost of traffic delays that would have resulted had the system not been built. I'm not sure if there is a light rail system in the U.S., including the NY Subway, that actually makes money when these huge costs are omitted, but I'm quite sure that every system that has been built in the U.S. to date has turned out to be a success when these avoided costs are accounted for.

That would be a much needed fistulation, to be sure.

Not taking sides on the Seatac line (remember, the line services a much larger area than just the airport. The 3000 is the in and out of the airport only). Just providing some figures, that's all. I'm in favor of light rail because such comprehensive systems have been great successes everywhere they've been built in the U.S, it is an environmentally sound alternative to driving, it's the fastest, most efficient way to travel through a developed area, and because it spurs urban density where transportation and services are already available (also environmentally sound), not out in east bumfuck, which is a formula for unsustainable, environmentally wasteful growth.