I’m not part of the green movement. I wouldn’t want to tell people what to drive, or force them to live in a particular place. I don’t think everyone should drive electrics, even though I may one day. But legislation can make the absolute *worst* choice even more appealing (see my comment about the Hummer subsidy).

The trick is to avoid making driving that gas guzzler even *more* appealing by granting tax benefits for driving the thing. And to take at least some steps to encourage the alternatives. What happened with electric cars in the ’90s was an absolute crime: they had efficient working cars that worked well in their environment, they had standardized charging stations, they had happy consumers. Between the government, the automakers, and the oil companies, they obliterated that opportunity.

Mass transit is great, but it’s a 30 year project costing fourty or fifty billion dollars out here in Vancouver. That’s assuming the transit authority develops the balls to actually get started. Instead they spend a billion or two and run a route to the airport where no one lives. Today, it would take two to three hours for me to get to work on mass transit, and cost me about $8 for the privilege- each way. And heaven forfend if I should have to get to and from work outside of normal business hours.

Maybe part of the problem today is too many alternatives. When the really successful mass transit systems were built, in places like London or New York, it was the late 19th century. It was rail, or horses- really, no alternatives. The most efficient alternative (rail) was also arguably the *only* alternative. Once the base was there, expanding it was a no-brainer. Today, you have cars, buses, subways, elevated rail, blended systems with rail and “sign out” rental vehicles…someone has to make choices. Some of the worst choices, such as everyone driving around in single passenger super-sized SUVs, are also amongst the most financially and emotionally appealing. Politically its a lose-lose situation.