On Jun 15, 9:46 am, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Tobis wrote:
> > How do you come up with 50%?
>
> By comparing the fleet efficiency of the USA to what is easily
> achievable with a wide range of existing vehicles. It's not like there
> is any rational reason for subsidising SUV production.
>
> It should be noted that (in the UK) people move house on average every 7
> years, although this is presumably made up of some regular movers and
> others who stay in one place for decades. I guess people change vehicles
> at a similar (probably higher) rate. So I don't buy your "couple of
> generations" claim (well, maybe that is true for giving up *all
> driving*, but IMO that suggestion is a bit of a straw man). People who
> actually think about trying to reduce their transport requirements can
> often do so with relatively little effort. However, currently the price
> of petrol even in the UK is so low that it barely figures in the process
> from a purely economic point of view (the time cost of commuting is a
> bigger issue for many if not most people).
At UNC (where I work) they are increasingly forcing single occupancy
vehicle (SOV) commuters to park in sattelite lots and bus in. That
tends to get rid of the time cost advantage.
>
> James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
