I think that at least in Japan, everyone finances the trains, meaning that it costs 2.00 to go 1 station or 3-4. As a society, we need to decide wither fossil fuels is a viable fuel/transit option for decades to come. Just My opinion.

Dave

Sue,

There seems to be a great deal of anger in your life.

-Blast

I do not think stores made a lot of profit from basics
like flour, beans, rice, sugar. Maybe they are trying to
change all that.

National food chain super markets were selling dried beans
for 79 cents/pound then raised them even higher.
Walmart raised them from 49 to 79.

So I checked out some health food stores;
a local chain store sells them for about 50 cents/pound.
They are also reasonable on seeds and nuts.
They also beat Alfalfa and Wild Oats on these prices.

Without making special trips, check your local stores.

I did not check out Costco or Sams Club; sometimes they
have cheap prices.

Good luck on the grains...

Now on to the train issue....
Subsidy equals PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.. Everyone pays for everything whether they use it or not.

People in the U.S. are to tied to their individuality (personal travel options) to buy into the mass transit thing. Besides the distances needing to be covered are to vast.

As more emphasis is put on biofuels, expect this to become more of a regular occurance.

Great concept, but for wide spread, commercial implementation, welcome to the pain of unintended consequences.

The problem is - Let's look at Japan - it's average Population density is 343 people/sq KM - which basically means that except for the most rural parts of Japan, it pays to run commuter trains

Now, I just picked a Midwestern state - Wisconsin - it's population density? 38/sq km

Ohio - 107

The list goes on.

What it comes down to - look around at the US big cities and their suburbs - they DO Have Mass Transit - ot a lot of them do. NYC (Yep - The MTA and it's subsidiaries), Chicago, Yes, LA, Boston, Philly etc - all yes. There are citys that could benefit from the addition of Mass transit (Hello Texas and Florida)

The problem is, even when you get to exurban NYC - say you're getting out a ways on some of the NJ Transit lines - of for that matter, most of them, they don't really pay, and the only reason there is service out that far is that the rail lines are there for freight use

Now, interesting, I take mass transit (disclaimer - for the last 2 months, I have not due to a leg injury, and the inability to walk even the length of a train platform - but since 1992, other than that...). I like Mass transit. A friends father used to help design mass transit systems. It's just that for it to be at ALL reasonable, you have to have N number of people within a certain distance of the right of way, otherwise it does not "pay off" even with a subsidy - and you can look at that as even on a polution level - you generate X amount building the line, Y amount maintaining it, and Z amount running the trains - it can get rural enough that you'll never pay back X+Y+Z

Like I said, I forget the exact population density breakpoint is, but it IS there

Actually all other forms of transportation besides trains get large subsidies.

Airlines like to suggest that the taxes they pay cover it but building, owning, and operating an airport is pretty heavily subsidized. As is the air traffic control system, most of the FAA and both anti-terrorism security and accident investigations.

Highways are also massively underwritten by the taxpayers. Heavy trucks lay on the vast majority of the wear and tear but their fuel taxes only cover a small fraction of the cost of building and maintaining highways. Then there is law enforcement and accident investigation.

Shipping is also heavily subsidized. The Coastguard is not funded by shippers and maintaining navigable channels and aid to navigation are all picked up on the US taxpayers dime. Inland you have all those locks and structures the Corp of Engineers has spent the last 50 years building to keep barges moving. All paid for by taxpayers money.

In fact of the major transportation systems the one that is least subsidized by taxpayers, and yet the one which taxpayers think they subsidise the most, are railroads.

Railroads are also inherently the most efficient of all methods of transport in terms of energy used/ton-mile or man-mile.

I looked into the bus schedule (only mass transit available in my city) a couple years ago. I live within the city limits and have to drive west into downtown then north to my office just outside the outerbelt, or drive east to the outerbelt and take it around to my office. Driving into downtown and up is a 30 minute 20 mile commute, driving around the outerbelt is a 40 minute 25 mile commute in the mornings. To take the bus, I have to drive about 5 miles/5 minutes to a park and ride then wait for the bus. Then take it a 30 minute ride into downtown and get off at the transfer station. Then wait for another bus then ride it the 45 minutes up to my company and hope the first bus wasn't late because there is only one that goes by my work so if I miss it then I'm out of luck for the day. Then I have to get on that bus at exactly 5:00 since there is only one that leaves there and take it back down town, wait for the next and take it home. It at least doubles my commute time and makes the chances of me missing one or the other very high since my job requires me to be flexible on my schedule too.
I wish someone would design better mass transit then it would be workable.

We quit shopping at walmart a few years ago and have noticed that while everyone else complains about the rising prices of foodours stays pretty much the same. Sams club has started raising their prices too sowe buy less and less from there and buy the same food from Kroger because its now cheaper there.
I think part of the problem comes from Walmart selling things at a loss to undercut the competition and then they reaise them up to a profit level and all of a suddent they cost more than another store with less overhead.

"The real problem is that ethanol is crap as fuel."

I don't get it. For one thing, the info at the two sites you posted conflict with each other, and your energy ratio figures don't seem to correspond to anything.

I'm sure corporate America is panting to put every field in America into corn, but using a food product for fuel is stupid. Scientists have discovered that common switchgrass makes fine ethanol. It produces about 15 tons of dry biomass per acre, and five-year yields average 11.5 tons—enough to make 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre each year. (One acre of corn can be processed into about 330 gallons of combustible ethanol, while one acre of hemp can produce 1,000 gallons.) It's a perennial that can be harvested once or twice a year, and only have to be reseeded every ten years or more. It grows on poor, wornout soil.

But it does have its drawbacks:

The Corn Cartel will scream its collective head off.

The pesticide people will be screaming too, as they aren't needed, and will lose money because of it.

Switchgrass grows on poor soil, helps stop erosion, and doesn't need much in the way of fertilizers, esp chemical fertilizers, so Monsanto and Dow will scream,too. Ah, the decisions, the decisions!

Once ethanol production increases to where it will be a threat to the oil companies, AcresUSA magazine says "At signal intervals, the oil cartels will drop the price of gasoline to recently unheard-of lows while corn nudges parity, this to bankrupt ethanol producers and set up transfer of assets to grain handlers at 5 and 10 cents on the dollar."

The oil companies are also trying to get people to believe that the cost of producing ethanol isn't worth it. AcresUSA says it's a "Matter of bookkeeping": "Let's set aside the scholarly idea that fuel alcohol costs more than oil and is therefore uneconomical. That proposition depends entirely on how books are kept. With a $2 billion a week tab for a war over oil, with ocean spills to clean up, with well over 100,000 sacrificed to the god of war, the true cost of oil is much higher than the price paid at the pump."

So what if Brazil is currently the largest producer of ethanol (from sugar cane)? What would be the difference between buying oil from the Mideast, and buying ethanol from Brazil? Grow it here, make it here, use it here.

From http://www.ethanol-fuel.us/
"Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler all have flex-fuel vehicles in their line-ups that can run on either gasoline or E85. Toyota says that they will introduce E85 flex-fuel vehicles if the demand is high enough. Toyota also states that developing such vehicles isn't that difficult of a task compared to say, developing a hybrid vehicle."

Sue