how is that going to address all the externalities of cars though? If it goes that fast, still uses fuel... how are we not going to run into the same set of problems.

I like the earlier posts talking about removing the government subsidies for the thing, and letting the government costs fall on a gas tax.

That and remove the low end restrictions on vehicles. In such an environment, ppl might use scooters (which they were doing anyway in the face of high prices), Segways, and bikes. The family hauler may well be a $2500 electric golf cart. We already have lighter cheaper vehicles that don't need airbags and such. We just need to let ppl use them. Let ppl realize the costs of car ownership and maintenance, and bikes segways scooters golfcarts will all be attractive options. And that way no one is saying "thou shalt not drive an SUV" which kind of bothers me in an anarchist sort of way. Follow new urbanist design principles, and re-village-ize the suburbs as much as possible, and we have the beginnings of a solution.

Also regarding weather. Minneapolis sucks. It always sucked. It sucked when the norwegians and swedes settled there and got around on x-country skiis. It sucked when the chippewa and fox wandered around on long snowshoes. A sport ute makes it nicer, but doesn't address the fundamental suckage of winter up north. I don't know that in the face of higher fuel costs, we can assume the priveledge of 70F inside air in our vehicles. But this just reinforces the point of workable/walkable urban density. If we cannot hop in a and 4WD across the city for our morning commute, it will be awful nice to only live .25 miles, which would be a nice 5 minute ski.

True, I'm not advocating a solution, just a stop-gap that might help the transition. For me the weather is a BIG deal. It just isn't acceptable to be sweating at work. I can't think of many jobs you have to leave your home for where it is. If I have to work up a sweat going to work, I need to be able to clean up before work. If it's raining, I need to be able to change clothes at a minimum. Very few places have facilities for that. While in the military every work center had those facilities, and it made even my daily 8 mile commute very do-able by pedal power. I don't have those facilities at work now, so the bikes just sit.

I'd be willing to bet convincing someone who wears makeup or has a complicated hair style to take care of that stuff at work is going to be one of the more difficult parts of a non-auto transition. It's not a matter of convincing them they need to stop driving their car or work closer to home, we're talking about a wholesale adjustment to a lot of people's self image. And that kind of resistance is universal, regardless of income, location, and everything. People don't want to appear "in public" without their morning whatever, and if their conveyance isn't weather-tight they will have to. It's one reason the subway is so successful, where they exist.

But you also have to begin somewhere. If you begin with building an infrastructure that supports "slower" moving vehicles as commuter options, as in "slow vehicle" lanes and the like for getting into the city from the 'burbs then you will have roads and such for them that are tons safer for non-motorized traffic too. If there was a 2-lane road going from Milwaukee to Chicago, for example, that is only for vehicles that physically can't go over 55mph, that's a lot safer road to ride a bike on then any others. Maybe safe enough to get some folks along the route to go in and out of the cities on it by pedal power. Traffic on that road would be slower, Rt. 66-esque road-side shops would spring up, the PACE would be forced to slow. The towns along that road would re-open the little mom-and-pop hotels and cafes long since closed, for the people who wouldn't be able to make the trip in an hour anymore and would be forced to spend the night or eat dinner somewhere. The small towns would see progress.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the direction I think we need to be going. Everyone complains about the pace of life these days, but transitioning out of it needs to be progressive too. Again, you've got to start somewhere.

yeah, you're right on. it's funny how many of the solutions are right there in front of our noses. but we ignore them for some hopefule dream that is more based on faith than reality.

rail, NU development, bikes, golf carts, quads, segways, and slowing down would ameliorate this crisis with the tools we have.

Almost by definition those will be the ones we don't use.

Speaking of the Route 66, has anyone been on that part that runs near Ludlow, CA?
Plenty of shuttered establishments along the way.
I even feel sorry for the Kelso rail depot that is just now only beginning to become a tourist spot.
As the poster said a few lines before this one, a slow transition to slow and easy travel would spring these things back to life.
I say let the supersonic freeways rot, and lets all ride trains and enjoy the country-like roads.
Besides, part of the fun is getting "there".

Oh, I agree that we should make good use of the tools we already have. However, I think we should add a healthy dose of imagination, envisioning new technologies that might help solve transportation problems. After all, technological innovation merely takes the reality we live in and creates new ways of manipulating it that nobody thought of before. If opportunities exist for new ways of getting around, we should explore them, whether they use existing devices or ones we haven't thought of yet.

1-Better public transit! That will draw people out of their cars.
2-The humble bicycle -- the most efficient way to get around.
3-A new technology that hasn't been invented yet.
4-Market forces will take care of it.
5-Better urban planning and tax penalties/incentives.
6-We should not eliminate the private automobile. Cars are good.

How about all of the above.
1 is only doable with a certain population density and therefore dependant on 5.
2 requires resonable distances and is not for everyone.
3, well there's alway hope.
4? Few people are going to be doing much driving at $30 + per gallon.
6, you can't eliminate the private auto but you can reduce its footprint to an acceptable level. I recently read that during WWII rationing limited a person to 3 gallons per week. If we had 100 mpg cars that would be 300 miles. If all the other pieces were in place, there would be no need to drive more than that.