new type of "hybrid" car system?

Why not go the whole hog and run a magneitcally levitated train over the coils?

It would need pretty much the same amount of copper and electrical distribution infra-structure, and would go a whole lot faster - faster still if you made an air-tight train and built an air-tight shroud around the track so that you could run the train in a vacuum and eliminate air-resistance. There are a couple of magnetically levitated test tracks around the world, so that idea is definitely practicable, if expensive.

It would probably be cheaper to take one lane away from all major routes and install public transportation rail. People will still have the freedom to choose driving if they want, but I say toll them $1/mile minimum.

Hmmm...

Every hybrid review I've seen says that highway milage is comparable to similar weight/size/engine standard cars with the real milage gains being in stop and go city driving.

Ford is bad, any GM product is worse, but Chrysler is worst of all ;-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |

As long as you charge "mass transit" riders the true cost of operation.

"Greenies" should be burned at the stake ;-)

...Jim Thompson

It would have to cost much less than the expense of the never-ending road repair and improvements, emergency response overhead, law enforcement overhead, insurance overhead, vehicle maintenance overhead, property tax overhead, and who knows how more overheads in the personal vehicle centric system we have now. I'm pretty sure people will come out way ahead by being forced into mass transit- most of them can't drive to save their lives anyway.

Most hybrids have BETTER city mileage thn highway mileabe.

Not by a country mile.

Virtually all public transportation is outrageously cost ineffective compared to personal vehicles.

The costs are cleverly buried.

There was a time when sustaining a large automotive industry equated to a healthy economy. But now that the big American companies are employing so few people and the major raw materials are coming from offshore, this reasoning is obsolete- except for the service sector, who everyone knows are the original thieves from hell. It's time to pull the plug on the whole sheebang.

The cost of maintaining a stable fuel supply?

That can't possibly be true- those costs are union or company/govt thievery and do not reflect what the actual cost should be.

Priceless? -)

Highways and streets are paid for by gasoline taxes... the USER pays. I ask nothing less for mass transit.

Our j*rk-off mayor has pushed a "light rail" system successfully through ballot... operating cost will be $12.50-$13.00 per one-way ride. Guess who's paying, NOT the rider.

...Jim Thompson

True. But for teh same engine size they get better acceleration. Thus for a constant performance they win. Not for continuous top speed. But top speed is not important any more.

Thomas

Composted, surely.

I'm not fond of the local branch of Greenpeace, who grossly over-simplify all the arguements, and gnerate a lot more heat than light, but I'm afraid that Jim's suggestion that "mass transit riders" are excessively subsidised includes the usual right-wing blind spot about the subsidy that the motorist gets from the capital and upkeeep invested in the road system.

If motorists had to pay their fair share of the cost of the roads they drive on, almost everybody would be forced to use the mass transist systems, which make much more efficient use of the money invested in the roadways and rail-track.

"Top speed is not important any more" ??

It is for me... I like to average 100MPH across the desert ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Non sequitur.

Acceleration and constant performance are two different things.

As for top speed not being important, I invite you to drive the US 15 between Las Vegas and the Mexican border while the semis go by at 85 and tell me that.

I don't know what country you're in, but in the US roads are built and maintained with fuel and vehicle taxes.

minimum.

Yep. Sloman has trouble understanding that our streets and highways are paid for _almost_entirely_ from gasoline taxes... ~60¢/gallon here in Arizona. "Almost", because here in AZ we have voted to add a 0.5% sales tax to retail purchases to speed up new freeway construction... IIRC, about 30 miles of new freeway per year.

New homes... contractors must pay-for/put-in the streets/curbs/sidewalks and dedicate them to the city/county/state; so there's no unbalanced capital burden on the rest of the taxpayers.

...Jim Thompson