Who do we like for Governor?

[GRDadof3]

Very much on the mark. Both Granholm and Devos want to spend money on roads, but Devos' focus is on new roads and adding lanes, while Granholm's is on repairing existing roads.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...ITICS/607020329

I am a fan of wide roads and highways so I don't necessarily see Devos' position as being in the wrong in this case.

I was just looking for that study that states you can successfully build your way out of congestion. It had examples of places like Southern California, Texas and Atlanta in it as successful test cases, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it.....

Hmmmm let's see

Devos is wrong on this one, but I'll let it slide.

[civitas]

I was just looking for that study that states you can successfully build your way out of congestion. It had examples of places like Southern California, Texas and Atlanta in it as successful test cases, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it.....

Hmmmm let's see

Devos is wrong on this one, but I'll let it slide.

LINK to ARTICLE

"Given the stranglehold that congestion has on our daily lifestyle, you would think that people would do just about anything to shorten or eliminate their workday commutes and drives to the market. But powerful lifestyle counterforces often wreak havoc on our logic paths, complicating what might seem to be rather easy choices. In one survey of more than 2,000 commuters, WRCOG found that 85% of respondents said they would rather suffer a 45-minute commute and live in a single-family detached home instead of living in a comparably-priced attached residence with only a 15-minute drive to work. While that's a strong statement about the benefits of owning a single-family home, what is overlooked in this survey response is that 15% of the commuters would opt for the shorter commute. Digging deeper, the survey also showed that 1 out of every 10 respondents indicated they would take a 15% pay cut to substantially reduce their commute; 14% replied they would accept a 10% pay cut to suffer less driving, and 26% said "o.k." to a 5% pay cut. Imagine the positive impacts on our transportation infrastructure if we could eliminate or shorten 10% to 26% of the commute trips being made by our region's residents! By zoning for higher-densities and mixed-use opportunities in selected locations (e.g., planning for and building real city centers), jurisdictions in western Riverside County can actually help maximize the effectiveness of the billions of dollars we invest in transportation systems by creating localized land use patterns that do not exacerbate our transportation problems."

[michaelskis]

I am not a fan of any plan that would expand auto oriented expansion. Studies have shown that wider roads don

[civitas]

I am not a fan of any plan that would expand auto oriented expansion. Studies have shown that wider roads don't help in terms of numbers of vehicles per space of concrete. More should be invested in alternative transportation such as rail, bus, bike, trolley, boat, and such. *So yes, if DeVos wants to build or expand more roads, I disagree with his ideas on that one.

As for francishsu comment about intelligent design being the number one reason to not vote for DeVos, being that is it is not an issue and both candidates have the same view point (as in it does not matter who wins), don't you think that is a bit of a hypercritical reason?

I recall being upset with a State Rep once because nothing ever happened in Lansing relative to smart land use. He explained that 2 of the most powerful lobbies in Lansing are road builders and farmers. That would place you firmly between a rock and a hard place.

More roads are not the answer to anything (except maybe for the US-131 extension south to the toll road).

[GRDadof3]

I recall being upset with a State Rep once because nothing ever happened in Lansing relative to smart land use. He explained that 2 of the most powerful lobbies in Lansing are road builders and farmers. That would place you firmly between a rock and a hard place.

More roads are not the answer to anything (except maybe for the US-131 extension south to the toll road).

Now that I CAN agree with, because it will directly affect interstate commerce, not necessarily trips to the Krispy Kreme.

Ahhh, I feel more relaxed just looking at this picture of Atlanta. I think if they went to 10 lanes in each direction instead of a paltry 9, that would do wonders.

[torgo]

Ahhh, I feel more relaxed just looking at this picture of Atlanta. I think if they went to 10 lanes in each direction instead of a paltry 9, that would do wonders.

Widening existing roads is useless for the most part. Going from a 2 lane road to a 4 lane road might have some benefits, but expaning a major road from 6 lanes to 8, or something similar, is an expensive exercise n futility if you ask me. One new road project I could get behind would be a another local crossing in the Grand Haven / Spring Lake area.

[francishsu]

As for francishsu comment about intelligent design being the number one reason to not vote for DeVos, being that is it is not an issue and both candidates have the same view point (as in it does not matter who wins), don

[michaelskis]

They don't have the same viewpoint. One views intelligent design as proper material for SCIENCE classes, the other doesn't. I've tried to emphasis this nuance repeatedly in my previous posts, and why I am strongly against ID being taught in biology. I'm not sure what else I can say on the subject.

Were do you read that?

[francishsu]

Were do you read that?

Please be more specific. I have no idea what you are asking?

[walker]

Were do you read that?

Type in the words Devos Intelligent in Google News then take a look at the articles for Sept. 20 from the original Associated Press article. It's pretty clear to me that Devos favors teaching intelligent design as part of science curriculums and Granholm doesn't.

[Rizzo]

Politically related:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan government owns Citgo Gas. http://www.citgo.com/Home.jsp and Chavez hates America. Is it such a good idea do buy their gas if they could use the profits to destroy us?

I know where I am not going to buy Gas from anymore.

michaelskis, I understand your frustration, but in today's global economy we can't just boycott and not expect it to come back and hit us. Citgo is still heavily involved in America and by that I mean heavily involved in producing American jobs. Venezuela knows it. A boycott of their products could help destroy us.

[gvsusean]

Politically related:

michaelskis, I understand your frustration, but in today's global economy we can't just boycott and not expect it to come back and hit us. Citgo is still heavily involved in America and by that I mean heavily involved in producing American jobs. Thoes right-wing facists in Venezuela know it. A boycott of their products could help destroy us. If we want oil to work for us, we need to drill in ANWR, off the coast of Florida, and the Great Lakes.

oh nononononononono, DO NOT drill in ANWR or the great lakes, we need a new alternative, gas prices that were really high would've been so beneficial to this, I kinda wish gas would sky rocket to 4-5 dollars a gallon. we would be oil independent within a decade or two

[Rizzo]

That's not my personal view, I ment that as if we want to get off of this dependence, there's the crack fix... but I'm guessin that 4-5$/gallon wouldn't really matter anyway. I wonder what Devos would do if gas prices go up again, that is when under political pressure?

[Nitro]

I kinda wish gas would sky rocket to 4-5 dollars a gallon. we would be oil independent within a decade or two

Spot on....The best innovations for alternative fuel technologies will come when gas in America is $5 or more.

[DwntwnGeo]

Spot on....The best innovations for alternative fuel technologies will come when gas in America is $5 or more.

How much would gas have to be per gallon before mining "Oil Shale" into oil/gas will become economical?

"The largest known deposit is in the Green River Formation in the western United States; it contains an estimated 213 billion tons of in-situ shale oil (about 1.5 trillion U.S. barrels)"

website source with PDF: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/

"The Green River shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are estimated to contain 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, and while not all of it can be recovered, half that amount is nearly triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia."

website source: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/0...hale_retor.html

[WOT]

Spot on....The best innovations for alternative fuel technologies will come when gas in America is $5 or more.

I am so glad I am not the only one

My wife thought I was nuts when we were filling up at COSTCO this week and I told her in all seriousness that $2.13 was not a good thing. We must solve the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

[Nitro]

How much would gas have to be per gallon before mining "Oil Shale" into oil/gas will become economical?

We need to forget about oil all together. It isn't doing a damn thing for us. It's a non-renewable resource that is causing green house gas emissions at staggering rates.

Screw oil.

[snoogit]

I am so glad I am not the only one

My wife thought I was nuts when we were filling up at COSTCO this week and I told her in all seriousness that $2.13 was not a good thing. We must solve the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

Everytime I say this to someone "2.13 is hurting us, not helping" I swear people are going to throw me out of the car.

[DwntwnGeo]

We need to forget about oil all together. It isn't doing a damn thing for us. It's a non-renewable resource that is causing green house gas emissions at staggering rates.

Screw oil.

Nitro,

I understand that. I am not against spending money to find alternative sources for energy. The point I was going for is as liquid crude starts to diminish and the cost of gas rises, companies may start looking at making their crude from shale again because it would be cheaper than drilling for the last drop of liquid crude.

As I would like to see alternative sources for energy also. Oil companies, car companies and other businesses are so intrenched with using oil, it will take a long time for them to change. It doesn't mean they won't or cannot, but they won't do it willing (IMO). As prices continue to go up for whatever reason, they will spend money and resources to find ways to create crude or something simular to run on their oil dependent systems UNTIL it becomes cheaper for companies to toss out their systems and build new ones using new technology.

On a side note, do you think Ford and GM are making E-85 motors just because they want to spend money on research, developement and plant change overs? They are doing it for the almighty dollar, as most companies today are run on revenues and stock prices. For every car/truck that is built with and E-85 motor, GM and Ford will recieve a nice check from the Federal government for their efforts. If there wasn't a federal check in the mail, do you think they would be doing this?

[Nitro]

If there wasn't a federal check in the mail, do you think they would be doing this?

They would if the market was demanding it. The state of the auto industry right now is in huge turmoil. Ford is barely keeping its head above water, GM is looking toward Fiat to keep its head above water. Chrysler already flew the coop to Europe. They need to make products that are and will continue to be profitable.

If from the market side we were saying, we wont buy your crap until you produce something that reduces our dependence on oil, they'd be doing it. Sadly, I don't see that happening for some time.

[civitas]

They would if the market was demanding it. The state of the auto industry right now is in huge turmoil. Ford is barely keeping its head above water, GM is looking toward Fiat to keep its head above water. Chrysler already flew the coop to Europe. They need to make products that are and will continue to be profitable.

If from the market side we were saying, we wont buy your crap until you produce something that reduces our dependence on oil, they'd be doing it. Sadly, I don't see that happening for some time.

I serve on a non-profit board with a man who does strategic planning for the automotive industry. He told me a few years ago that Toyota actually has a 50 year plan that imagines a time when cars are completely free of any connection to fossil fuels. They recognize their need to prepare for that reality.

There was a time when I thought 50 years was forever, but in the context of a complete shift in energy sources, it isn't very long at all.

I assume (hope) that other auto manufacturers are doing the same. Beam me up Scottie.

I especially hope that someone is thinking about how my kids will be heating their homes in 50 years.

[DwntwnGeo]

If from the market side we were saying, we wont buy your crap until you produce something that reduces our dependence on oil, they'd be doing it. Sadly, I don't see that happening for some time.

Demands from the purchasing market does play a major role in what products companies sell. GM, Ford and Chrylser all are not doing well. Is it because they are not making an enviromentally friendly product or that other companies are making a simular product at less cost to the consumer?

I guess we might be getting a little with our discussions here. If there is enough interest we could start another thread on this topic.

[DwntwnGeo]

Toyota actually has a 50 year plan that imagines a time when cars are completely free of any connection to fossil fuels. They recognize their need to prepare for that reality.

That would be great if Toyota has a plan, that they can stick with, to make cars/trucks completly free from fossil fuels. Toyota has made some great growth over their lifetime. They are growing to become the largest automakers, if they haven't reached that already. Hopefully they can keep their goals in reach and roots in tacted. Sometimes as companies get so large they get wrapped up in other stuff, that they may forget what they really stood for or how they were able to get where they are at today.

[GRDadof3]

The Toyotas and Hondas of today will be replaced by the Hyundais and Kias of tomorrow. You heard it here first. Watch out for Chinese automobiles too to take a big chunk of the market in the next 20 years. The Toyota Camry is NOT a quality product, people just think it is because Toyota does a better job of branding. Each and every Toyota comes off the assembly line with over 300 defects, you just don't hear about them.

[civitas]

The Toyotas and Hondas of today will be replaced by the Hyundais and Kias of tomorrow. You heard it here first. Watch out for Chinese automobiles too to take a big chunk of the market in the next 20 years. The Toyota Camry is NOT a quality product, people just think it is because Toyota does a better job of branding. Each and every Toyota comes off the assembly line with over 300 defects, you just don't hear about them.

Huh??? (JD Powers link)

2006 IQS Ranking Highlights

Lexus and Toyota models continue to dominate initial quality rankings, capturing 11 out of 19 segment awards in 2006... Toyota remains a quality benchmark, capturing five model-level awards-for the Corolla, Solara, Camry, Highlander and Sequoia-more than any other non-luxury brand...Toyota receives a total of four assembly plant quality awards for producing vehicles yielding the fewest defects, including the Platinum Plant Quality Award for its Iwate, Japan, plant, producer of the Lexus ES 330. The Iwate plant averages just 32 PP100. Plant awards are based solely on scores for defects."

"Hyundai ranks among the top three nameplates in the study for the first time in the history of IQS."