Eric, I agree completely, it is unwise to tie your thinking to short-term phenomenon. Plentiful oil and the US monopsony that kept it cheap are short-term phenomenon.
http://gumwars.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/22/1445910-update-iea-warning- 125-mbd-supply-shortage -----Original Message----- From: Eric Westhagen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:46 PM To: Matt Logan; BikiesSubmissions Subject: Re: [Bikies] H.R. 6532 To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Restore the Highway Trust Fund Balance Dear Matt Logan, History has shown that you had better not tie your long range thinking to "short-term" phenomenon. Your wishful thinking about "the new order" of American travel is hardly a certainty any more than it was in the Carter gas line crisis. Of course our oil supply is a big campaign issue and ever "Move-on.org" is shaking over the consequences to their Democrat candidate Barak Obama. Today they have mounted a counter attack citing the "right wing" and talk radio for convincing most Americans we need to expand capacity at home which has been stifled by Democrats. Of course the auto industry is responding because they MUST respond in the short run. They must adjust production to the fickle public or else. The showrooms demand just what people are buying--today. Back in the Carter crisis, I bought about as large a car as you could find and it was depressed from just a few years before--a Gerschtenschlager Bookmobile which had been used in S. Dakota. In the following years I drove my "house car" to both coasts. Don't expect that personal choice in car purchases will profoundly change quickly. The change is at the margin and our current crisis IS that margin. The fact that heavy and larger cars are safer cars is not a fact or understanding subject to whims. We cannot predict the oil production very far in the future any more than we can predict the highway usage which you seem to imply is the new reality. Certainly if we get sucked into a war expansion with Iran, we might all be on bicycles, permanently. Eric Westhagen Matt Logan wrote: > While I am on the subject of dealing with the decrease in gas tax > revenue, USDOT has released a plan to deal with the situation: > > http://www.fightgridlocknow.gov/index.htm > (The word "bicycle" is entirely absent from the materials on the site.) > > I would note that a key focus is on "dealing with congestion" as opposed > to simple maintenance. It occurs to me that a congestion-centric focus > is obsolete in these times of safer roads and less traffic. > > The video on the home page is a real hoot. In it, Mary Peters suggests > that reducing our fossil fuel dependence somehow hinges on utilizing > private sources of funding for highway projects. I guess if you believe > that the amount of fossil fuel consumed by congestion, if saved, would > be sufficient to give us energy independence, then this makes sense. > The problem is that historically, increased capacity has lead to > increased driving and fuel consumption via a phenomenon called > "triple-convergence". > > And one more tidbit I'd love to know more about: > > Why is the highway trust fund going to run dry in 2009, yet there's $8 > billion sitting there unused in the transit fund? We have news reports > of overloaded transit systems and it seems the feds are dragging their > feet on funding the improvements to make mass transit in this country > more efficient. > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > Bikies@danenet.org > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > > > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list Bikies@danenet.org http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
